Welcome to The Fast Diet › The official Fast forums › Body › Different approaches to intermittent fasting › 72 hour fast every week
This topic contains 9 replies, has 7 voices, and was last updated by alexm_ 2 weeks, 5 days ago.
Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)
7 Aug 16
I’ve started pretty slowly, 16-8 interchanging with 20-4 diet. On the weekends it makes sense to me to fast for longer periods. I’ve started with 48 hour fasts, and now I’ve done 72 hour fasts on the weekends for 5 times already, every week.
I must say it’s somewhat hard (and 48 is easy now), I do feel pretty good most of the time, and I don’t have any physical/mental problem with that, I actually wait for it during the week, and feel somewhat better during the fast (I feel some of the health comes back to me when fasting, but it’s definitely subjective feeling).
My question is how healthy is this regime in the long run? I feel it became a weekly routine for me, and I’m very comfortable with it – but I’m not sure this is not too much stress on the body in the long run.
8 Aug 16
That’s a good question! I can only go from what I’ve read results various researchers have conducted. For example, Valter Longo has developed FMD which involves fasting for 4-5 days in a row on less food than 5:2, though this is only recommended to undergo 4 times a year.
I’m curious to know why you decided to opt for 48 hour fasts and then the 72 hour fasts rather than 5:2 on non-consecutive days? Do you have a substantial amount of weight to lose?
Well I started 16-8 just for health reasons (ketones, insulin sensitivity etc.) even not weight, and no dietry restriction. But after a while I saw it’s also a good way to lose weight, which I was afraid to try before because of yo-yo effect which has been proven to worsen the health as well as cause more weight gain in the long run (and yes I was BMI 31).
So 16-8 Shifted to 20-4 couple times a week, and water fasting became pretty natural. Then I tried 48 hours, which is in the direction of 5:2 (it was more like 6:1 with 48 hour water fast).
My way of life is such that it makes sense to fast on the weekends but not during the week. So 48 hours and 72 hours, once a week fitting well into my schedule, but 5:2 not so much. It also doesn’t make sense to me to eat 500 calories, I just become hungrier. I want to eat a lot or not eat at all, this feels much more natural to me.
This is basically the premise of warrior diet which I stick to some days, but to get some extra weight off I fast 72 hours (when 48 hours fasts started to be less effective).
9 Aug 16
I see! Sounds like you are finding what works for you.
19 Aug 16
How are you doing with your fasts? I have been experimenting over the months to see what works best for me & am having trouble finding my ‘happy spot’ regarding length of fasting & how often. For me, it’s a fine line to find the fasting duration that gives me results & not overdoing it (which leads to burn out &/or overeating on non-fast days). How are you doing during your weekdays?
Well I’ve few tricks during the weekdays:
1. I usually fast for 16-20 hours (interchanging this fasting period). So the window for eating is pretty small.
2. I’m not eating processed sugar nor wheat so all the insulin related issues are less sound (I eat potatoes, rice and red meat). I also eat much more fatty foods – so fats are between 60%-80% of my calories.
3. When I overeat on some day, the next day I try to eat less, to balance.
4. Overeating is hard. I fast for two days a week, so I need to balance it with ~2500 calories every day (when my baseline is 1800 = 2500 * 5 / 7).
5. Some high amount of my calories comes from nuts (~30-50%). Which were proven to support weight loss on their own right in several studies.
Meanwhile I’ve switched to maintenance for the last two weeks. My maintenance regime is pretty simple, when I see that I gain weight (i.e. when overeating), I just fast for 48 hours. It’s very hard to overeat to compensate for two days. Eating 4000 calories is really hard job, I usually can’t eat more than 3000 calories and it’s also pretty hard, it happens when I eat a lot of fatty meat (250 grams) and nuts (300 gram) and fruits (300 grams). I can’t imagine how can anyone get more than 3000 calories without sugar and bread.
6 Jul 17
Hello I’ve just started fasting today first time ever doing this should I do the 72 hr fast and would it be better to start with the 48 hr ?
Hey not sure why your question is in this thread.
On my opinion you should take it slowly, level by level. Staring from 72 hours, could work for you – from my experience, it’s just too hard, and you won’t be able to do it often before you build your “fasting muscle”.
I would suggest to start from around 5 fasts of 24 hours, if you feel comfortable with that, switch to 48, do around 5 of those as well – then move to 72. My number (5 fasts) are taken from my experience, and I’m even not sure exactly how much I did.
Basically try it simple first – when you get bored, jump to the next level. 24 hours steps are also kinda harsh, maybe 24, 36, 48, 60 and 72 fasts is the best grading. Making at least two on each level making sure you totally feel comfortable with that, before advancing to the next.
I’m talking from my experience only – and I’m not a doctor or anything.
Are you here to try 5:2 fasting? If so,as simsim has said, his/her fasting regime is one worked out for himself/herself, works well for this individual situation. However it’s not 5:2.
I would advise you to start on the straight 5:2 regime and get used to that for say 3 months before looking at trying something more challenging. 5:2 has been designed to be the easiest fasting regime and it works very well. It is the system most people have been able to do. Less people do longer fasts successfully, andand when you fast over several days there are health considerations for some peole who may need medical supervision.
I sugges you read “Info for newbies” by simcoeluv. Put it innthe search box to find. It is an excellent introduction to 5:2.
24 Mar 21
Would like to re-ignite this discussion, especially interested in https://thefastdiet.co.uk/forums/users/simsim314/ and if you are still fasting 3 days a week. I’m very interested.
7 Sep 21
Hi Andrew Jackson!
If my experience could be of some help, last year I wanted to loose at much weight as was practical and not too dangerous. I started with one meal a day (rest is water only) for about a month, then went to one meal 2 days for about a month, then one meal every 3 days for about a month (that is when I started to feel very hungry near end of fast period, eating a lot and having problems with bloating – maybe it was combination of food or I restricted duration of eating and tried to eat too fast – btw meal lasted about 2-3 hours with lots of fruits and vegetables), then I tried one meal every 4 days and broke after one round. Fitness-wise couple days into last round I left most able and my BMI was at lower end of normal. As far as I recall after said brake I ate sporadically for several days what my body wanted then went to one meal a day and was able to adhere to it for some time. Feel free to ask, I think I can try to share more from my experience.
You must be logged in to reply.
Username or Email:
Track your weight and measurements, BMI and TDEE with our new tracker.
The Fast books are available throughout the world and in many different languages. Buy a copy today.
Michael is touring Australia this September! Here's a link to dates and tickets. Hope to see you there.
Michael Mosley gives an update for 2019, current research in the field and announces a tour starting in February.
Michael looks at the Horizon special, "What's the Right Diet for You" and tells us which diet they say is best for him.
• All featured posts •
in Welcome to The Fast Diet and Exercise forums • updated 1 hour, 8 minutes ago by Charlie G
in Weight loss • updated 5 hours, 21 minutes ago by Penz
in Weight loss • updated 9 hours, 13 minutes ago by symba7
• All recent topics •
Copyright © 2021 Michael Mosley and Mimi Spencer
Technical questions or problems with the site? Please email our technical contact.