5:2 fasting means actually half a week!?

This topic contains 8 replies, has 4 voices, and was last updated by Botany Bill 11 years, 5 months ago.

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)

Mandoula

2:40 pm
14 Jun 13
Permalink

Hi, I’m a Finnish lady of 60 and very interested in IF, started this week. Second day and feeling fine, sipping Indian black tea with ginger. I’ve been reading the book of M&M and decided to establish a Facebook group for my fasting friends. I got the book for a 60th birthday present and think that’s one of the best presents I’ve ever had!

One thing I’ve been wondering: when you do the the whole day fasting beginning with a low-cal breakfast and ending with an ordinary one next morning, that makes the fast 36 hours long: night-day-night. And if you do that twice a week (not consecutive days) you’re gonna FAST 72 HOURS IN A WEEK. That is 43 %, almost half of the duration of a week! I think the actual duration of the fast is not discussed in the book. Is it really appropriate to fast so much? And isn’t that a little tough for a beginner?

And how can you be sure that you really lose fat, not the muscle?

I would be very grateful for the answers of more experienced fasters! I’d like to lose weight as quickly as possible but I wonder if it’s safe to do fasting in so long periods so frequently.

corin

4:25 pm
14 Jun 13
Permalink

Hi, I’m 60 as well and just started today.

Well, I’m certainly no experienced 5:2er, and I’d like to hear responses as well, but I’m keeping it very simple on fast days. I really don’t count the hours I’m actually fasting without food. Like Mimi, if I want a few small meals during the day to equal 500 calories, so be it. I’m more concerned with eating my 500 calories twice a week than actual hours in a fast.

For you experienced ones out there, should I be concerned with how many hours I’m actually NOT eating during fast days? Unless I missed something, The Fast Diet book didn’t put that much emphasis on actual hours fasting without food vs. just doing the 500 calorie thing twice a week. And I’m just doing the latter.

Opinions?

Mandoula

4:27 pm
14 Jun 13
Permalink

Found Michael’s post from February 22nd concerning “muscle breakdown and protein deficiency” which was very exhaustive. It seems that it isn’t that easy to lose muscle. The timespan you’re without food is not that long. And before and after you can take in proteins.

corin

5:47 pm
14 Jun 13
Permalink

Thanks Mandoula!

Couscous

9:30 pm
14 Jun 13
Permalink

Hi Mandoula and corin, Good to see you both on the forums. My response to your comments are based on 4 months fasting. My fasting days are, give or take a couple of hours on a Monday and Wednesday the 72 hrs you mention. As a 65yr old male who likes his food and alcohol I have found this to be fine for me. Nothing has fallen off, gone missing or physically changed as far as I can see, apart from my weight loss. I play golf and there has been no noticable loss of muscle strength. I still hit the ball the same distance I did before starting to fast.
I also think that you can deduct on average 8hrs sleep for each fast day, a total of 16 hrs from our 72 hrs. I say that because we sleep regardless of fasting. A moot point I know. If you google the history of fasting I think you may find that this system is quite a lot easier than some methods. Our bodies are regularly subject to self abuse in terms of over eating so to fast this way is actually a help to our abused bodies.
Sticking with food, we stuff a lot of it into our bodies that is not really needed and which can harm us. Take saturated fats for instance. Plus do we really need to stuff ourselves till we keep putting on weight and risking illness such as cancers and diabeties?. The reality is that it is our minds, not our bodies that feel the need to eat more than we need.
Inner health wise (this is the main aim of fasting) I believe research has shown that fasting actually is safer for us generally, (subject to medical opinion from your doctor) and this type of fasting according to the majority of people on these forums is that it is ok.
Remember, weight loss is for me a secondary but welcome benefit behind the inner bodily benefits that come with fasting.
Good luck and give us a regular update if you continue.

Mandoula

9:37 pm
17 Jun 13
Permalink

Thanks Couscous for your encouragement. It’s true that the alternative for fasting is often body abuse and overeating. Fasting overcomes, sure.

But an interesting issue is whether we fast while sleeping. Maybe it doesn’t make sense to count the night before in the fasting period because then we should think we fast every night. That would change the whole idea of fasting. Bu the next night after having fasted all day long and getting to bed hungry is different. I think that must be fasting, par preferance. There are the little repair processes going on inside the body.

I don’t know why it’s so important for me to know how we should speak about the length of the fast. 🙂

Couscous

6:34 am
18 Jun 13
Permalink

Hi Mandoula, I think it is wise and healthy of you to ask questions of this particular “Fasting” system and to wonder if it is safe, especially for yourself. You are no different from every other poster who has views about it.
My view about the amount of time of each days fast is based on my own eating times based on when I wake up in the morning to when I go to bed in the evening. A routine that many live by subject to shift systems that many work and other work/life issues. So on Sunday evening I have my last meal around 7pm. On Monday morning 7am I commence my “Fast” with breakfast. I drink low cal drinks or water during the day then have my second “Fast” meal around 6pm or 7pm on the evening. Then to sleep about 10.00pm. The Tuesday morning I “break my “fast” and eat normally having my final “normal” meal about 7pm, to bed 10.00pm then commencing my “Fast” again on the Wednesday morning. I then eat normally on the Thursday. This suits me but may not be suitable for others. I also go to the gym and have a workout on my fast days with no adverse effects.
If you browse the postings you will find many do ask a variety of questions concerning the timing and length of fasting along with other concerns. The important thing is what works for you. Experiment until you find what you are comfortable with. There is no right and wrong way other than ensuring you fast for 24hrs.
I would caution you about wanting to lose weight as fast as possible. Look at the weight as a welcome secondary effect that will happen slowly while fasting will help your inner physical and mental health in ways you may not be aware of.
Keep reading the posts and keep posting your thoughts and experiences. We all value them and they give us support as well.
Please keep us updated on your experiences and success with this type of fasting life style. Good luck.

Botany Bill

11:12 am
18 Jun 13
Permalink

I agree with Mandoula. Fasting starts when we stop eating, not a the time we would have eaten but didn’t. In fact, the book shows an example of the 2 to 2 fast, which runs from 2pm on one til 2pm on the next, which points out that we do indeed fast while we sleep. Of course we know this because our first meal in a day “breaks the fast”.

The latter sounds more like a true 24-hour fast. The way Mandoula (and I) do it, it’s 30+ hours.

Botany Bill

12:53 pm
18 Jun 13
Permalink

I just found the answer in Michael’s FAQ section:

***
Is a “fast day” 24 or 36 hours?
In reality a fast day is 36 hours. If you finish your last full evening meal at 7.30pm on Sunday, then Monday is your fast day, you are not going to be eating normally till Tuesday morning 7.30am. That is 36 hours. If you decide instead to fast from 2pm on Monday until 2pm on Tuesday, then that will only be 24 hours. Wait till 7pm and that is 29 hours. To do 36 hours you would have to hold off till 2am on Wednesday, which would be a little inconvenient
***

So, Mandoula, you are correct. It depends on how one executes the plan, but the normal plan makes it a 36-hour fast for each fast “day”.