Restricting every second day only 800 approx/ 1500 approx alternative days
MaggieMillion
Posts: 10 Member
Anybody else having good results doing this? I like it, it gives me freedom to go out and 'act normal' if I'm with friends, and then when I'm at home I can do weird things in the kitchen :-p
Mentally it's easier I think. I read about it on line ages ago and it's called Zig zag diet but now I can't find any more information on it. I suppose it's just a far less extreme version of 5:2
I tried that. That was hard but it did serve to make 800 calories seem relatively 'easy'.
Mentally it's easier I think. I read about it on line ages ago and it's called Zig zag diet but now I can't find any more information on it. I suppose it's just a far less extreme version of 5:2
I tried that. That was hard but it did serve to make 800 calories seem relatively 'easy'.
0
Replies
-
Yep I did alternative day IF, (JUDDD), for my weight loss phase and it worked well for me. I rotated between maintenance level calorie days and then 400- 500 calorie days.1
-
MaggieMillion wrote: »Anybody else having good results doing this? I like it, it gives me freedom to go out and 'act normal' if I'm with friends, and then when I'm at home I can do weird things in the kitchen :-p
Mentally it's easier I think. I read about it on line ages ago and it's called Zig zag diet but now I can't find any more information on it. I suppose it's just a far less extreme version of 5:2
I tried that. That was hard but it did serve to make 800 calories seem relatively 'easy'.
It's actually more restrictive than 5:2. You are averaging only 1150 calories per day, which is pretty low for the majority of women.8 -
Ohhh never heard of this , but heard of 5:2 x0
-
avg under 1200 cal a day isn't healthy in the long run - even if you are zig-zagging the diet5
-
MaggieMillion wrote: »Anybody else having good results doing this? I like it, it gives me freedom to go out and 'act normal' if I'm with friends, and then when I'm at home I can do weird things in the kitchen :-p
Mentally it's easier I think. I read about it on line ages ago and it's called Zig zag diet but now I can't find any more information on it. I suppose it's just a far less extreme version of 5:2
I tried that. That was hard but it did serve to make 800 calories seem relatively 'easy'.
It's actually more restrictive than 5:2. You are averaging only 1150 calories per day, which is pretty low for the majority of women.
What you read decades ago was the "Rotation Diet".......also very restricitve.
Over 14 days this is an average of 1200 calories a day....this is a default minimum for MFP BEFORE exercise. So if you are very petite and sedentary /or elderly and sedentary.....carry on.
But most women should be looking @ more calories......especially if you are anything above sedentary. Maybe you could swap out your 1500 calories for a maintenance day (or 2) on the weekend.
http://scoobysworkshop.com/calorie-calculator/1 -
Up your 1500 calorie day a bit so that your average is something more reasonable and you'll be doing much better. This type of diet personally wouldn't work for me but I can see how some people are very successful with it (when done properly - not as you're doing now with too few calories on both days).3
-
MaggieMillion wrote: »Anybody else having good results doing this? I like it, it gives me freedom to go out and 'act normal' if I'm with friends, and then when I'm at home I can do weird things in the kitchen :-p
Mentally it's easier I think. I read about it on line ages ago and it's called Zig zag diet but now I can't find any more information on it. I suppose it's just a far less extreme version of 5:2
I tried that. That was hard but it did serve to make 800 calories seem relatively 'easy'.
It's actually more restrictive than 5:2. You are averaging only 1150 calories per day, which is pretty low for the majority of women.
What you read decades ago was the "Rotation Diet".......also very restricitve.
Over 14 days this is an average of 1200 calories a day....this is a default minimum for MFP BEFORE exercise. So if you are very petite and sedentary /or elderly and sedentary.....carry on.
But most women should be looking @ more calories......especially if you are anything above sedentary. Maybe you could swap out your 1500 calories for a maintenance day (or 2) on the weekend.
http://scoobysworkshop.com/calorie-calculator/
1500x7=10500
800x7=5600
10500+5600=16100
16100÷14=1150
1150 <12003 -
MaggieMillion wrote: »Anybody else having good results doing this? I like it, it gives me freedom to go out and 'act normal' if I'm with friends, and then when I'm at home I can do weird things in the kitchen :-p
Mentally it's easier I think. I read about it on line ages ago and it's called Zig zag diet but now I can't find any more information on it. I suppose it's just a far less extreme version of 5:2
I tried that. That was hard but it did serve to make 800 calories seem relatively 'easy'.
It's actually more restrictive than 5:2. You are averaging only 1150 calories per day, which is pretty low for the majority of women.
Well, I probably do the 800 three days a week and the 1500 four days a week so that might be more than the figure that my fitness pal recommends when I enter my height and weight.1 -
Thanks Teabea, I will google rotation diet. I am only 157 cm and I@m in my 40s. It works well for me.0
-
MaggieMillion wrote: »MaggieMillion wrote: »Anybody else having good results doing this? I like it, it gives me freedom to go out and 'act normal' if I'm with friends, and then when I'm at home I can do weird things in the kitchen :-p
Mentally it's easier I think. I read about it on line ages ago and it's called Zig zag diet but now I can't find any more information on it. I suppose it's just a far less extreme version of 5:2
I tried that. That was hard but it did serve to make 800 calories seem relatively 'easy'.
It's actually more restrictive than 5:2. You are averaging only 1150 calories per day, which is pretty low for the majority of women.
Well, I probably do the 800 three days a week and the 1500 four days a week so that might be more than the figure that my fitness pal recommends when I enter my height and weight.
That would bring it up to 1200 per day average.1 -
MaggieMillion wrote: »Anybody else having good results doing this? I like it, it gives me freedom to go out and 'act normal' if I'm with friends, and then when I'm at home I can do weird things in the kitchen :-p
Mentally it's easier I think. I read about it on line ages ago and it's called Zig zag diet but now I can't find any more information on it. I suppose it's just a far less extreme version of 5:2
I tried that. That was hard but it did serve to make 800 calories seem relatively 'easy'.
It's actually more restrictive than 5:2. You are averaging only 1150 calories per day, which is pretty low for the majority of women.
What you read decades ago was the "Rotation Diet".......also very restricitve.
Over 14 days this is an average of 1200 calories a day....this is a default minimum for MFP BEFORE exercise. So if you are very petite and sedentary /or elderly and sedentary.....carry on.
But most women should be looking @ more calories......especially if you are anything above sedentary. Maybe you could swap out your 1500 calories for a maintenance day (or 2) on the weekend.
http://scoobysworkshop.com/calorie-calculator/
1500x7=10500
800x7=5600
10500+5600=16100
16100÷14=1150
1150 <1200
OOps! - I used 900 (thinking Rotation diet I guess) .....her post didn't read 900 at all.1 -
MaggieMillion wrote: »MaggieMillion wrote: »Anybody else having good results doing this? I like it, it gives me freedom to go out and 'act normal' if I'm with friends, and then when I'm at home I can do weird things in the kitchen :-p
Mentally it's easier I think. I read about it on line ages ago and it's called Zig zag diet but now I can't find any more information on it. I suppose it's just a far less extreme version of 5:2
I tried that. That was hard but it did serve to make 800 calories seem relatively 'easy'.
It's actually more restrictive than 5:2. You are averaging only 1150 calories per day, which is pretty low for the majority of women.
Well, I probably do the 800 three days a week and the 1500 four days a week so that might be more than the figure that my fitness pal recommends when I enter my height and weight.
MFP will give you a calorie goal based on your weekly weight loss goals.....a high goal = low calories.
If the weight loss goal is too high......the calories have nothing to do with your size or activity level. A high weekly weight loss goal just forces the one-size-fits-all minimum. That minimum 1200 is based on meeting nutritional guidelines, and has zero exercise factored in.0 -
That sounds like alternate day fasting or, as mentioned above, JUDDD. My understanding is that you are to eat at maintenance on the non fast days and around 20-25% of maintenance calories on the fasting day. So what you are doing is a little different and depending on your maintenance may be too low -- I'd figure out what a reasonable every day number would be and then figure out if your average is around the same.0
-
MaggieMillion wrote: »Anybody else having good results doing this? I like it, it gives me freedom to go out and 'act normal' if I'm with friends, and then when I'm at home I can do weird things in the kitchen :-p
Mentally it's easier I think. I read about it on line ages ago and it's called Zig zag diet but now I can't find any more information on it. I suppose it's just a far less extreme version of 5:2
I tried that. That was hard but it did serve to make 800 calories seem relatively 'easy'.
How much weight do you have to lose and how fast are you losing it? Could you post that information? If you're losing at a reasonable rate (which depends on how much you have to lose) then whatever you're doing is working for you and I'd continue. If you're losing faster then you should up your weekly calories slowly and experiment until the rate of loss slows down.
0 -
Hi mph323, well, I considered that I had about 8 pounds to lose. I have lost four lbs now in less than 3 weeks which is quick for me. I'm in my forties and when I was much younger it would take longer to lose the weight but I was eating the same amount every day. It was a slower weight loss when I dieted in the conventional way. Some thing in my metabolism just definitely responds well to dieting every second day. I did calculate my amounts according to the calorie recommendation provided by mfp. But it's a rough calculation. I may eat more than 800 some times. I may eat less than 1500 on my 'normal' days. I won't beat myself up either way. It all evens out if you stick with it. When I get down to 120 pounds (ish) I will stop aiming to do this three times a week and aim to do 900 twice a week.0
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
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K 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
- 96.3K 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