5:2 "fasting" and 16/8 fasting, which one is better?
CatMarlett
Posts: 27 Member
5:2 "fasting" and 16/8 fasting, does anyone have evidence supporting which one is better? from either personal experience or articles (scientific ones).
0
Replies
-
whichever you stick to9
-
Intermittent fasting works because it helps create a caloric deficit over time, that's all the science. Whatever one works best for you is best.4
-
Intermittent fasting is an eating style, 5:2 is a diet... depends what you're after.0
-
If you're looking to lose weight either work. Intermittent fasting is a lifestyle, but if you create a daily deficit you will lose weight. It depends on what you can adhere to best. 8 hour eating window with a 25% daily deficit off your TDEE or 5 days a week at TDEE and two days a week at 500 calories.0
-
Intermittent fasting helps me stay in a deficit easier. I mostly like it for my energy levels. Fasting during the day gives me high energy.
But since my workouts are now consistently 6 days a week, and are somewhat intense I do better with 14/10.
I don't feel IF in itself makes a person lose weight better or faster. It just makes it easier to create a deficit.Makes adherence easier. But that's my personal experience.1 -
From personal experience, 5:2 works for me when I can stick to it and even more so if I can fit it into 16:8 window as well. It's all about personal preference and what works for you, you could try both for a month or two each and see what you get the best results with.3
-
Bit of a strange distinction. Care to expand?TavistockToad wrote: »Intermittent fasting is an eating style, 5:2 is a diet... depends what you're after.
To answer the "which is better" then my answer is the one that suits you. Until you try you won't know.
For me that was 5:2 to lose weight, remarkably easy to adhere to and supported a heavy exercise routine well.
5:2 to maintain was a pain though, felt I was having to work at eating enough on the 5 days to offset the 2 days.
6:1 to maintain was OK and gave a more natural feeling calorie allowance.
Tried 16:8 but found that I felt over-restricted. I'm someone who can easily skip breakfast without feeling any more (or less) hungry by lunchtime but I just didn't like feeling I had to skip breakfast.
I could lose weight (or maintain weight) doing 16:8 but just didn't enjoy it.
There's very little impartial scientific evidence that isn't cherry-picked to death to support a particular fasting style so read with a cynical eyebrow raised!!
Dr Krista Varady has done the most controlled study (IMHO) on her ADH style of eating but you can't (shouldn't anyway) extrapolate that to other fasting protocols.2 -
TavistockToad wrote: »Intermittent fasting is an eating style, 5:2 is a diet... depends what you're after.
Bit of a strange distinction. Care to expand?
To answer the "which is better" then my answer is the one that suits you. Until you try you won't know.
For me that was 5:2 to lose weight, remarkably easy to adhere to and supported a heavy exercise routine well.
5:2 to maintain was a pain though, felt I was having to work at eating enough on the 5 days to offset the 2 days.
6:1 to maintain was OK and gave a more natural feeling calorie allowance.
Tried 16:8 but found that I felt over-restricted. I'm someone who can easily skip breakfast without feeling any more (or less) hungry by lunchtime but I just didn't like feeling I had to skip breakfast.
I could lose weight (or maintain weight) doing 16:8 but just didn't enjoy it.
There's very little impartial scientific evidence that isn't cherry-picked to death to support a particular fasting style so read with a cynical eyebrow raised!!
Dr Krista Varady has done the most controlled study (IMHO) on her ADH style of eating but you can't (shouldn't anyway) extrapolate that to other fasting protocols.
IF doesn't create a deficit in of itself, its just a way of eating - in a particular time frame.
5:2 is a way of creating a deficit by having 2 fast days.
0 -
^ This. There's nothing magic about IF. If it helps create a deficit and is something you can adhere to, it will work; if you overeat during the eating window or it causes you to binge, it won't work.extra_medium wrote: »Intermittent fasting works because it helps create a caloric deficit over time, that's all the science. Whatever one works best for you is best.
^ And this....There's very little impartial scientific evidence that isn't cherry-picked to death to support a particular fasting style so read with a cynical eyebrow raised!!...
I more or less kinda sorta do a 16:8 because it's just the way I normally eat and works best for me, but I'm not rigid about it. If I happen to be hungry outside that window, I eat. 5:2 would never work for me because there's no way I'm going two days of the week eating 500 calories a day. My adherence level would be zero and a diet you can't adhere to is a diet that won't work.0 -
TavistockToad wrote: »TavistockToad wrote: »Intermittent fasting is an eating style, 5:2 is a diet... depends what you're after.
Bit of a strange distinction. Care to expand?
To answer the "which is better" then my answer is the one that suits you. Until you try you won't know.
For me that was 5:2 to lose weight, remarkably easy to adhere to and supported a heavy exercise routine well.
5:2 to maintain was a pain though, felt I was having to work at eating enough on the 5 days to offset the 2 days.
6:1 to maintain was OK and gave a more natural feeling calorie allowance.
Tried 16:8 but found that I felt over-restricted. I'm someone who can easily skip breakfast without feeling any more (or less) hungry by lunchtime but I just didn't like feeling I had to skip breakfast.
I could lose weight (or maintain weight) doing 16:8 but just didn't enjoy it.
There's very little impartial scientific evidence that isn't cherry-picked to death to support a particular fasting style so read with a cynical eyebrow raised!!
Dr Krista Varady has done the most controlled study (IMHO) on her ADH style of eating but you can't (shouldn't anyway) extrapolate that to other fasting protocols.
IF doesn't create a deficit in of itself, its just a way of eating - in a particular time frame.
5:2 is a way of creating a deficit by having 2 fast days.
Don't really agree. Different semantics I suppose.
My diet is the foods I eat.
My calories over a period of time determines my weight loss/maintenance/gain dependant on my goal at the time.
How that is divided up over the day or week is an eating pattern, eating style or the slightly cringe-making "way of eating" to my mind.
1 -
What everyone else said, whichever you find works with your lifestyle, and there are many other fasting "diets" you can use. I use 23:1 personally, it fits my lifestyle. Of course it may be that fasting diets don't work for you at all, I which case neither!0
-
caradack1985 wrote: »What everyone else said, whichever you find works with your lifestyle, and there are many other fasting "diets" you can use. I use 23:1 personally, it fits my lifestyle. Of course it may be that fasting diets don't work for you at all, I which case neither!
23:1 sounds much more my style, except it would be inconvenient to have to wake up every hour during the night to eat!
3 -
TavistockToad wrote: »TavistockToad wrote: »Intermittent fasting is an eating style, 5:2 is a diet... depends what you're after.
Bit of a strange distinction. Care to expand?
To answer the "which is better" then my answer is the one that suits you. Until you try you won't know.
For me that was 5:2 to lose weight, remarkably easy to adhere to and supported a heavy exercise routine well.
5:2 to maintain was a pain though, felt I was having to work at eating enough on the 5 days to offset the 2 days.
6:1 to maintain was OK and gave a more natural feeling calorie allowance.
Tried 16:8 but found that I felt over-restricted. I'm someone who can easily skip breakfast without feeling any more (or less) hungry by lunchtime but I just didn't like feeling I had to skip breakfast.
I could lose weight (or maintain weight) doing 16:8 but just didn't enjoy it.
There's very little impartial scientific evidence that isn't cherry-picked to death to support a particular fasting style so read with a cynical eyebrow raised!!
Dr Krista Varady has done the most controlled study (IMHO) on her ADH style of eating but you can't (shouldn't anyway) extrapolate that to other fasting protocols.
IF doesn't create a deficit in of itself, its just a way of eating - in a particular time frame.
5:2 is a way of creating a deficit by having 2 fast days.
Don't really agree. Different semantics I suppose.
My diet is the foods I eat.
My calories over a period of time determines my weight loss/maintenance/gain dependant on my goal at the time.
How that is divided up over the day or week is an eating pattern, eating style or the slightly cringe-making "way of eating" to my mind.
That's ok if you feel the need to disagree.0 -
caradack1985 wrote: »What everyone else said, whichever you find works with your lifestyle, and there are many other fasting "diets" you can use. I use 23:1 personally, it fits my lifestyle. Of course it may be that fasting diets don't work for you at all, I which case neither!
23:1 sounds much more my style, except it would be inconvenient to have to wake up every hour during the night to eat!
:laugh:0 -
caradack1985 wrote: »What everyone else said, whichever you find works with your lifestyle, and there are many other fasting "diets" you can use. I use 23:1 personally, it fits my lifestyle. Of course it may be that fasting diets don't work for you at all, I which case neither!
23:1 sounds much more my style, except it would be inconvenient to have to wake up every hour during the night to eat!
It takes serious commitment
0 -
TavistockToad wrote: »TavistockToad wrote: »Intermittent fasting is an eating style, 5:2 is a diet... depends what you're after.
Bit of a strange distinction. Care to expand?
To answer the "which is better" then my answer is the one that suits you. Until you try you won't know.
For me that was 5:2 to lose weight, remarkably easy to adhere to and supported a heavy exercise routine well.
5:2 to maintain was a pain though, felt I was having to work at eating enough on the 5 days to offset the 2 days.
6:1 to maintain was OK and gave a more natural feeling calorie allowance.
Tried 16:8 but found that I felt over-restricted. I'm someone who can easily skip breakfast without feeling any more (or less) hungry by lunchtime but I just didn't like feeling I had to skip breakfast.
I could lose weight (or maintain weight) doing 16:8 but just didn't enjoy it.
There's very little impartial scientific evidence that isn't cherry-picked to death to support a particular fasting style so read with a cynical eyebrow raised!!
Dr Krista Varady has done the most controlled study (IMHO) on her ADH style of eating but you can't (shouldn't anyway) extrapolate that to other fasting protocols.
IF doesn't create a deficit in of itself, its just a way of eating - in a particular time frame.
5:2 is a way of creating a deficit by having 2 fast days.
I absolutely agree with TavistockToad. I've been doing 16:8 for a couple years now. It's an extremely convenient way for me to eat. I've used it 98% of the time to maintain, 1% to lose(meet a weight class) and 1% to gain (get back to my normal weight) All without logging.
I've also done 5:2 prior to that to lose weight. If you do more reading and research, 5:2 is all about being a diet to lose weight (and for most) without having to track other than the two 500 cal days. 6:1 is the maintenance version. I have a friend that over a few months lost 14 lbs on 5:2 and has maintained a very lean body on 6:1 for quite some time now.
The 16:8 protocol can be used to gain, maintain or lose, all of which have nothing to do with the eating window part.0 -
I really like the 16:8. I am the type of person that has to have an empty stomach to exercise and clean. I just move better that way. So I get up and do my workout and then get my house work done. When my kids get home from preschool that starts my eating day. It helps me to have a bigger dinner that way. I can eat small for the first two but at dinner time I want volume.2
-
I love 16:8. Hate breakfast and love eating big meals. I do 16:8 and IIFYM.1
-
CatMarlett wrote: »5:2 "fasting" and 16/8 fasting, does anyone have evidence supporting which one is better? from either personal experience or articles (scientific ones).
what a brilliant question to ask !!! I am wondering the same thing...now time to get reading the answers, thank you for starting this topic !!!! I have done 5:2 but not 16/8!!
I def lost weight from 5:2 , however you can't undo everything on your non fasting days!0 -
lauradenslinger wrote: »I love 16:8. Hate breakfast and love eating big meals. I do 16:8 and IIFYM.
That is what I am doing too. At least I am learning more daily on IIFYM.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions