This method shouldn’t have a lunch on the second day, the 500 cals replaces a day’s worth of meals, ie dinner, breakfast & lunch. In all honesty the method is rather confusing and tends to result in less weight loss due to the minimal calorie deficit as most will try to squeeze in 2 lunches when they should just have one to produce the same deficit as the standard 36 hour/sleep-fast-sleep method.

http://thefastdiet.co.uk/different-ways-of-managing-your-fast-day/

I personnally enjoy doing the lunch until lunch fast. I prefer it to the day fast because I like having a proper lunch at work during the day and don’t mind not eating once I get home in the evening. The next day I find that I don’t wake up particularly hungry and once I start getting hungry at work it’s almost time for lunch!

So effectively I do a 24-hour fast, but it feels to me as a ‘proper fast’ in the sense of not eating anything at all. Surely this fast does not have to be 36 hours to be effective, as the ‘regular’ method (breakfast until breakfast the next day) also does 24 hours, right? A difference however is that the ‘regular’ option is ‘broken up’ by the evening meal, whereas the lunch-lunch fast is 24 hours without eating, period.

I do try to make sure I match the calories of the regular fast day i.e. if you’d usually cut 1500 kcals (2000 for a woman minus 500 for fast meals) over one day, I now try to eat 1250 kcals on both day 1 and day 2 (or at least totalling around 2500 kcals, as you might want to save some more calories for the second day when you have dinner instead of breakfast).

It works really well for me; I feel healthy and seem to be losing weight. I don’t see why “this fast shouldn’t have a lunch on the second day” for it to be effective!

That’s what I like about this diet; doing it the way it works for you. I just wanted to comment on what Moogie said to DeboWhit about the fact that, when fasting from lunchtime until lunchtime, you “shouldn’t” have lunch on the second day – as if that would be wrong. I also don’t agree with this being a “confusing” method and less effective for losing weight as it works fine for me and might work just as well for DeboWhit and possibly many others!

I just wanted to explain the way I like to fast which does include a lunch on the second day 🙂

So when I fast lunchtime until lunchtime I eat 1250 calories on each of the days:

Day 1: breakfast + lunch (total 1250 calories – or a bit less)
Day 2: lunch + dinner (total 1250 calories – or a bit more)

So you cut the same amout of calories (1500) as you would do when fasting by eating 500 calories on one day (spread over breakfast + dinner or whichever way you decide to divide them over the day). And you effectively fast for 24 hours.

@laurajane82: this topic explains it rather well: http://thefastdiet.co.uk/forums/topic/considering-alternative-plan-zero-calorie-true-24-hr-fast

The Fast Beach Diet also says that you are in the driver’s seat. If complete fasting for 24 hours doesn’t work, don’t do it. Mimi Spencer fasts only 12 hours.

Do what works for you.

Hi and welcome:

Here are my thoughts on what I think you are trying to do: http://thefastdiet.co.uk/forums/topic/52-calorie-restriction-v-fasting-for-newbies/

Good Luck!