is dinner to dinner OK?

This topic contains 21 replies, has 12 voices, and was last updated by sylvestra 10 years, 10 months ago.

Viewing 22 posts - 1 through 22 (of 22 total)

lucy west

7:11 pm
19 Nov 13
Permalink

I’m trying to start out on the 5:2 plan and attempted my first day today. The most appealing way of doing it, based on my preferred times of eating (don’t miss food during the day, but really like my evening meal), would be to fast from dinner to dinner (eating 500 calories in between). Mosley’s original book mentioned “fasting from supper to supper” as a viable option and emphasised 24 hours as sufficient.
However, I’ve picked up some forum stuff that 24 hours isn’t enough and it needs to be 36. Where does this come from and is it true?
I don’t know if it’s relevant, but I’m more interested in the longer term health benefits than losing weight (although that’s always a bonus).
I would be grateful for any informed opinions about whether I will get the health benefits from a dinner-to-dinner 24 hour approach.

Sassy

9:50 pm
19 Nov 13
Permalink

Hi Lucy and welcome 🙂

You raise an interesting question that I have seen discussed in other (older) topics, but never really satisfactorily answered…

I have to admit to not having read the book, but I assume that would give more info on this. So I don’t have an informed opinion, but can give you my understanding at least.

For the 5:2 diet, the basic structure is that you finish a normal day of eating, at say 7.30pm Monday, then you only consume a maximum of 500 cal until the morning of the day AFTER the next one, when you have breakfast, say at 7.30am Wednesday – which is considered a 36-hour fast.

But there do seem to be different interpretations over what a fasting period actually includes – sometimes when people refer to fasting they mean consuming no food at all, other times it does include being able to have a small amount of food (ie the 500 cals).

If you are hoping to finish a normal day’s eating one day, then the next day have 500 cals before you have a normal dinner, I am not sure if this will give you many benefits. This seems like normal eating?? However, if you didn’t have ANY food until your normal dinner on that second day, that would give you fasting benefits – especially if you could make that evening meal a healthy protein and veggies max 500 cal meal! (then that meets the fast day criteria for 5:2). But I am not qualified to give you an informed opinion, so hopefully someone else will 🙂

If weight loss is less a concern, but you are interested in the benefits of fasting, another common pattern is 16:8 – where you only eat in an 8 hour window every day (eg noon to 8pm).

Also, perhaps do some more research on other fasting options.

Very best wishes 🙂
Sassy

Nika

2:25 am
20 Nov 13
Permalink

Hi Lucy! Like Sassy said eating dinner each day with 500 calories in between doesn’t sound like fasting at all, just like a very normal day. I don’t think it will give you the benefits you’re looking for.
What you could do, if you really want a big dinner every day, is just eat in the evenings. So no breakfast, lunch or any other calories before 18:00. Then you can eat the calories you’re allowed that day (if you don’t want to do it the 5:2 way because that means small dinners, I suggest cutting 200-300 calories from your TDEE every day). Do this every day and you get the benefits of fasting combined with a large evening meal every day.

Now I also want to say that I do urge you to try the 5:2 for a few weeks like it’s supposed to, so the way Sassy described (the 36-hour “fasts”). I am one of those people who consider a fast only a fast when you don’t eat anything, so I’d say just eat a 500 calorie dinner on a fasting day then. And you’d be surprised how much you can eat for 500 calories if you be mindful to what you eat! A big stir-fry with loads of veggies and some protein (chicken, prawns for example) is a popular choice around here I believe.

Let us know what you decide, we’re here for support! And if you have any other questions just ask 🙂

sylvestra

7:52 pm
21 Nov 13
Permalink

Unless I’ve got this all wrong, my understanding is that the fast day should last at least 24 hours. I have my last meal in the evening before and then only have 500cals between it and breakfast on the day after.
If you have dinner the night before, then 500cals during the fast day and then dinner again that night of say 300 cals then you will have consumed 800cals on the fast day which rather defeats the object of the exercise.

lucy west

8:46 pm
21 Nov 13
Permalink

Thank you very much for your helpful and supportive replies. I find them very interesting because, on the one hand, I can see how ‘dinner-to-dinner’ over a 24 hour period is not much different from a normal calorie restricted diet (albeit not something I’m currently on). However, Michael Mosley makes it clear in his book that only 24 hours are required and that lunch-to-lunch is a viable option. So I can’t really see the difference between that and dinner-to-dinner.
Anyway, I think my conclusion is that I need to try fasting from dinner on one night to breakfast the day after the next day (ie 36 hours). My husband has just tried that, so it should spur me on!
Thanks again for your feedback.

sylvestra

10:30 pm
21 Nov 13
Permalink

I think when Michael Mosley says ‘lunch to lunch’ he means that if you finish lunch at, say, 1.30pm then you wait until AFTER lunch – i.e. AFTER 1.30pm – next day which when the 24 hours is up. I don’t think he means you should eat lunch on the fast day.

Nika

1:24 am
22 Nov 13
Permalink

I guess I kind of do dinner to dinner every single day… as I only eat dinner 😉 But 2 times a week my dinners are smaller than the other 5 days. Keeps it simple.

TracyJ

10:16 am
22 Nov 13
Permalink

lucy west, If you think that’d be the best plan for you then go for it. We’re all doing something different on here and it might work for you so give it a go and let us know how you get on. If you see no significant results then you’ll have your answer and you’ll need to find a different approach but at least by that point you should be a bit more ready to deal with hunger pangs etc.

Also, if you’re not that fussed about getting through the day without food anyway then maybe 16:8 would suit you better than 5:2? You would just introduce an eating window of 8 hours (or 1 meal if you prefer) into every day and not have any ‘fastdays’ at all. That would give you all the health benefits of fasting but you wouldn’t restrict your calorie intake, you’d just stay on or under (if you want to lose a bit of weight) your TDEE.

imraneeeee

4:04 pm
26 Nov 13
Permalink

Hi to all

JulieK1967

9:59 pm
2 Dec 13
Permalink

Hi Lucy, as others have mentioned if you eat 500 calories between 2 normal evening meals then you are not “fasting” at all really, in fact you are eating about as many calories as I would in a normal day. I would consume 1700 calories on my “not fast” days. I’m 5’2″ & weigh 141 pounds now (have lost 6lb since starting in early Nov).

What I do is have my last meal at around 7pm then I have nothing except water/tea until my small 500cals meal at 6pm the next day so a 23 hour complete fast. I then have nothing again until breakfast at about 9am the next day so 38 hours with just 500 calories consumed in one meal.

I find it easiest not to have breakfast or lunch on fast days to keep all the calories for my small evening meal. Tonight was sliced roast chicken breast (no skin) with a big green salad with orange peppers, cherry tomatoes & spring onions topped with low cal salad dressing. I actually wasn’t that hungry before dinner & feel quite full now. Your body does adjust.

I’m not ravenous when I wake up & sleep soundly. I do need to exercise more though I am quite lazy & my daily 30 mins fast walks have tailed off so that needs addressing.

Best of luck! Julie

EZ.Rider

2:48 pm
3 Dec 13
Permalink

I think you might start your fast after dinner, say on Sunday evening, and not eat again until breakfast on Tuesday. A midday “snack”, on Monday, would be alright, though. This plan would give you the longest intervals between meals and, I think, the most benefit.

I, personally, go without eating, for two consecutive days, from after supper, Sunday evening to breakfast, Wednesday morning. I snack on cucumbers, raw lettuce and celery sticks, if I get to feel really hungry, and I drink green tea and water. Last night I snacked, on some tofu and turkey broth, with miso and scallions. Just keep it light. I’ve lost a lot of belly fat, and I feel GREAT!

Has anybody else tried this schedule?

Stef.

4:54 pm
3 Dec 13
Permalink

EZ. Rider, are you saying you eat nothing from Sunday night until Wednesday morning or do you snack in between celery sticks?

My understanding was that a fast means zero at all, except water or tea. In other words your body gets nothing to digest during a fast period?

This has nothing to do though with the 5:2 or 4:3 diet, but much more with the 16:8 “rule”, whereby you try to eat within a window off eight hours and give your body a rest for the other 16 hours.

I have slight difficulties understanding your first sentence. You are saying not eating between Sunday evening until breakfast on Tuesday but then a snack on Monday would be alright?

Stef.

JulieK1967

6:19 pm
3 Dec 13
Permalink

There is of course a difference between a “Fast day” & actual fasting Stef. Fasting does indeed mean consuming nothing except water but a fast day on the 5:2 diet means consuming about 1/4 of your usual daily calories so around 500 for women (600 for men). These calories can be consumed any time during your fast day & people describe their food intake as “snacks” because an apple or a satsuma is not a meal but it counts towards your 500 calorie total & must be taken into account.

While most people have their 2 fast days on nonconsecutive days during the week (mine are Mon & Thurs) you can have 2 consecutive fast days where your calorie intake is restricted to 500 (or 600) on both days then the other 5 days you eat as normal. Some people choose to consume way less than the 500 (or 600) limit it’s all up to the individual. Sounds like EZ. Rider as far less than the daily limit but I’m sticking to 500 cals on my fast days & have lost 7lb in 30 days on the regime.

Stef.

8:52 pm
3 Dec 13
Permalink

Thanks Julie for the clarifcation. This is what I thought and what I do.

I was just confused by:
“I think you might start your fast after dinner, say on Sunday evening, and not eat again until breakfast on Tuesday. A midday “snack”, on Monday, would be alright, though. ”

“Not eat anything until breakfast” and a “midday snack” is contradicting each other?

Anyhow,I try both…the 16:8 and the 4:3 or 5:2 – not so easy!
Stef.

EZ.Rider

9:23 pm
3 Dec 13
Permalink

Semantics! A stick of celery is a “snack”.
I think my meaning was clear enough.

Nika

1:06 am
4 Dec 13
Permalink

I combine 22:2 and 5:2 at the moment Stef, and I’m doing quite OK 😛 I even do HIIT training at the end of my 22 period.
I’d prefer going 20:4, but my work doesn’t allow that (I work 45 hour weeks). So I just eat one meal a day and usually have problems eating enough calories on my normal days… it’s an interesting luxury.

timnz

8:42 pm
11 Dec 13
Permalink

The book does say fasting should be on two nonconsecutive days. From memory (I read it two days ago) it also suggests 24 hours of fasting is ok if that’s all you can do, but 36 is better. 36 hours means eating dinner Monday night, eating 500/600 calories Tuesday, then eating normally on Wednesday.

I’m on my first fasting day today, I’m thinking I might try to just not eat until dinner. I feel that eating anything may make me more hungry, not less.

Stef.

9:16 pm
11 Dec 13
Permalink

Timnz, this is what I do. I wait until dinner time and then consume my <500 calories. It works much better for me as eating during the day kind of wakes up my tummy and it yarns for more.

EZ. Rider- apologies but I am not a native English speaker. They do exist 😉

Stef.

dg0224

2:17 am
13 Dec 13
Permalink

Lucy, I’ve searched high and low for this answer as well. The book and the TV show emphasize that for the health benefits, not weight loss, you need to have two consecutive 12 hour periods of not eating. To me, that says that you finish dinner, wait a minimum of 12 hours, eat up to 500 calories, wait another minimum of 12 hours, then continue on eating normally until the next fast day. It seems like you have a similar impression. If this is a possibility, I would love to do it this way, as it seems to fit the criteria. However, the only reason I have doubt is that if you eat a big meal at dinner, your body might not realize it’s in fast mode until it has missed a meal, therefore, starting the clock at the time of the normal breakfast that you skip.

I’ve done the 36 hour method since June (dinner, then nothing until 500 calorie dinner the next day, then nothing until 12 hours later). I’ve only lost about 2 lbs (not in it for weight loss, as I’m 5’8″, 125 lbs). If the health benefits could be done on a 24 (or more realistically, 25 hour cycle) this would be easy peasy!

It would be great if Dr. Mosley would weigh in on this, since it seems to be a common question.

EZ.Rider

4:46 am
13 Dec 13
Permalink

” two consecutive 12 hour periods of not eating.”

No. I think Dr. Mosley said, that the studies on humans have followed a fast of two consecutive days. Dr. Mosley offers two nonconsecutive days, with 500 – 600 calorie meals, as a way that could be better tolerated, by most people.
I don’t see how a 12 hour fast could do any good. I think it takes 24 – 30 hours before your body switches into fat burning mode. I, personally, don’t start to feel any effect, until I have fasted for almost 24 hours.

liz35

8:10 pm
19 Jan 14
Permalink

Hi all,

I have the book on my kindle and am reading the suggestion of 2pm until 2pm or supper until supper. What they are auggesting is that you forgo, for example, dinner on the Sunday night and then don’t break the fast until Monday night. This is in contrast to having dinner, then fasting only til the following night.

sylvestra

8:20 pm
19 Jan 14
Permalink

@liz35 if what you are suggesting works for you and you get the results you want – then that is ‘right’ for you. We each have to find our own way – there is no absolute ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ – it’s what works for you.