I’m sorry you’re experiencing a plateau. I am, too…..I lost 3 stone in a year and need to lose a further 3 stone. However I have plateaued since las August and – although I’m keeping at my new weight, I am wondering why I’m not losing as much as I would like. If I am truthful, I do still have the awful sugar/carbs cravings and think I am increasing intake of those on my non-fasting days. I’m very disappointed in myself as my husband has reached is goal and is maintaining it. This isn’t helping you, I know, but perhaps a fellow frustrated 5:2 posting might let you know you’re not alone….good luck. It is still worth sticking to it….I do know that!

Rosiarr-
Sorry to ‘spy’ but I saw your post and clicked to view it and wanted to see if I could help…
Have you redone your TDEE since your weight loss of 10 lbs? You may need to change your calories a bit on your NFD. Also what are you doing for your exercise? All cardio or weights or both?
I have had a little success in the pst when I have UPPED my carbs actually 😉

upping the carbs— It can’t hurt! As long as your calories are around the same, you should give it a go!
Also perhaps doing more weight training, but not heavy just without a lot of rest so it feels very difficult and your heart rate is up for a long while- incorporating sprints instead of steady cardio helps your metabolism. 20 minutes on the treadmill @ 1 minute jog and 1 min run 1 min sprint and 1 min walk times 5 = 20 minutes and you will feel way more worked than a 5 mile run 🙂

I don’t know if this will help you, but since the fast diet has been so successful for me, I wanted to share my way of eating.

I started with 5:2 but quickly switched to 4:3 with the fast beach diet. Only good veggie carbs, very little fruit, lots of protein and good fats. (It might help you to read these blogs http://www.intensive dietarymanagement.com).
For exercise, I QUIT the gym, and only do 3 hit workouts a week, and 1 or 2 short weight segments. 15 minutes for hit, same for weights. I do them on my fast days.

Do not snack between meals! Go as long as you can. I recently started not eating breakfast like so many do here, and it jump started me.

I started at 176. Weigh in today after 6 weeks…162.6.

Try to delay breakfast as long as possible. The longer period of time between dinner and your first meal of the day, the better. I aim for 16 hours every day. I don’t always make it but most days I do. Your body can’t burn fat if it has food to burn!

Also watch your carbs and sugars. Especially when we get older (I am a 53 year old female…try doing this being menopausal! Even more fun!), processed carbs like breads and pasta, go straight tot the belly and hips! And sugar is lurking around every corner!

I also allow myself one single wonderful feast day a week, right after my weekly weigh in. I fast 3 days, eat good normal 3, and feast one. So far, down 15 lbs in 7 weeks.

I could post links saying the opposite, and I am sure others could recommend yet something else. It is all what works for you. I was relating what has jump started my weight loss. 17 lbs in 8 weeks. No more plateaus.

Thanks for the reminder. I think I finally hopped off the plateau. It would be cool if there was a magic formula that could make it all work faster but the simple, boring and unwelcome truth is I lose weight when I eat less. Proved it again.

https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/fasting-regimens-part-6/

Hi fitnfast:

I’ve read all of the ‘books’ you have mentioned (and many, many more) and have been letting people know about Dr. Fung’s excellent results for years. Dr. M ate breakfast and dinner, but agrees any number of times work (supporting the research I mentioned). None of the informational sources you mentioned have any research that says if you eat less than your TDEE in calories in a certain eating window, you will lose more weight than if you eat the same number of calories in a different eating window. If you look at your examples, you mention at least three different eating window timeframes – but you don’t say which one causes the greatest weight loss. I just contend that another ‘eating window’ is from when you get up to when you go to bed. I also contend, in line with the solid research literature, it does not make any difference which eating window you choose – you will get the same weight loss results regardless as long as you eat the same number of calories in the windows.

Many people use eating windows as a form of self discipline. They find if they make (and follow) the decision to only eat in a certain number of hours each day they will not snack as much as they might otherwise and it therefor helps them to eat less, or otherwise stick to their diet’s allotted number of calories. There is certainly nothing wrong with doing what it takes to eat less and lose weight or maintain weight loss, but it still is the number of calories you eat, not when you eat them, that matters.

I don’t know how to address your contention that a person eating fewer calories than their TDEE over time will not burn fat unless they eat those calories in short eating windows. That would mean millions of people on non eating window diets would not lose fat weight – but they all do, unless you contend their weight loss is muscle and bone weight only. I’m sure you are not saying that!

I believe you might be confusing weight loss results with ‘other health benefits’ that some believe will result if a person ‘fasts’ for a length of time measured in hours (there is solid research that fasting for several days is very beneficial). However, there is no evidence at this time that ‘other health benefits’ will result from fasting a certain number of hours a day, but not from fasting other numbers of hours (say, from bedtime to when you get up in the morning). I have absolutely no opinion on whether there are any such benefits from a few hours of fasting, but if you believe there are and want to try to benefit if there are, go for it! Fasting for a couple of extra hours a day certainly won’t hurt you.

I also believe you might be confusing ‘burning fat’ in the weight loss sense, with ketosis, which is the state a body gets to if it has not ingested carbohydrates for a period of time. A body can get into ketosis either by water fasting or eating a ketogenic diet (very few carbs). It generally takes a body two or more days of water fasting or eating a ketogenic diet to get into a complete ketogenic state. There is much scientific evidence that putting a body into a ketogenic state is very healthy and helpful with many ailments, from epilepsy to diabetes to cancer. Dr. Fung is using the concept to reverse Type 2 diabetes, and Dr. Atkins over a decade ago reported ‘curing’ thousands of Type 2 diabetics with his Atkins diet over the time he ran his clinic. It does work, and it is a shame the modern medical establishment has refused to acknowledge its effectiveness. But, again, a body does not get into ketosis in just a few hours, and even if it starts to within a 20 hour period, the question remains on how much does it help if it only stays there for an hour or two? No one knows.

But when it comes to weight loss, as the research says, it is the number of calories you eat that count, not when you eat them. If you are on a 10,500 calorie a week diet, and your TDEE is 14,000 per week, you will lose about a pound regardless of when you eat your 10,500 calories. My point is that for 5:2 to be effective as a weight loss way of eating, there is no need to eat by a stopwatch. In my opinion, that just adds an unnecessary layer of difficulty to an already difficult endeavor – that of changing how you eat for the rest of your life (not just a couple of months).

But if you want to make 5:2 more difficult than it needs to be, go for it. As you say, whatever works for you! But most people find 5:2 difficult enough without having to keep track of their eating times. And I would hate for them to stop with 5:2 because they can’t deal with eating only during certain time frames each day on top of everything else going on in their lives. If they (as you) want to, fine. But it is unnecessary. 5:2 works just fine regardless of when a person eats. That is my opinion, and I’m sticking to it!

Good Luck!

Hi fitnfast:

I once read about a guy who plateaued and bought a thing that allowed him to hang by his feet upside down. His weight loss restarted and he was convinced hanging upside down was the reason.

Short term plateaus are very common and come and go for no apparent reason (there is one, of course, but most don’t know why). If you just keep on the diet you are on, weight loss will resume. People who are impatient and try something different and then have their weight loss resume are convinced it is what they tried, not the diet, that caused the resumption of weight loss and that is why almost everyone who was ever on a diet has their personal sure plateau breaking thing to do, from more exercise to eating windows to hanging upside down.

People all believe what worked for them is the answer for all, but the answer for all is just to continue on the diet they are on. Number 3 in this post gives thoughts on plateaus: https://thefastdiet.co.uk/forums/topic/the-basics-for-newbies-your-questions-answered/

Good Luck!

Hi Fit and Simcoeluv

great discussion!

The last post threw in the supposition that exercise doesn’t contribute much to weight loss – I may have the wrong end of this particular stick but this has bothered me for a while! Rather fond of the idea, actually as I am a couch potato.

Why then when calculating TDEE is activity a consideration? I am equating activity with exercise. I can imagine activity can mean your job, but walking for your job, ie postman, and walking for exercise is surely the same thing – or am I missing something. Your TDEE is lower – much lower that if you are very active. So if I exercise more, I can eat more and still loose that same as I am losing at the moment, with little exercise.

So if I exercise more next week but keep to the same TDEE as this week, I will lose more – that makes sense to me. It would mean exercise contributes to weight loss. If you can attribute energy and calories to exercise, if you do 500 calories of exercise and forgo the doughnut, won’t I lose a pound of fat if I repeated the exercise 7 times?

I may be sounding thick and I do know that a pound of fat doesn’t actually equal 3500 calories, but that’s a whole different discussion. And I know the type of exercise has an effect – but TDEE doesn’t explore the type of activity either.

Fit, I completely understand what you mean – you way has worked for you – far better to give examples of what works, when people are stuck they need ideas. I’d never heard of 19:5 until I came across this site – just started doing it – incidentally because I thought it would help to stop me snacking.

Hi Diverdog

doesn’t answer my question.

The ‘accepted’ calculation is if i reduce my calorie intake by 3500 calories, I will lose a pound in weight – put aside that the figures for this don’t even add up, this still seems to be the accepted calculation.

If I do ‘activity’ of 3500 calories, would I lose a pound of weight?

Foolish or not – I’ved reached the age of 58 with a lot of years of exercise followed by a lot of years of hardly any. Quite fit with only minor problems – far fewer problems that my best friend, who is super super fit and exercises more than anyone I know. I overeat, would I be thin in I had exercised – ergo would exercised have helped my weight – if so then why has it a smaller effect?

BTW mu best friend is super thin too!

Hi diverdog

I didn’t doubt you understood my question, but now you have answered it. I didn’t ask which was easier. The answer before was that exercise itself doesn’t contribute much. Your answer is that it contributes equally. So, if my TDEE was 2000 at sedentary – I wish it was – net loss on 5:2 would be 3000 calories roughly a lb a week. For arguments sake this happens, in 6 weeks I lose 6lbs. If I then increase my activity by a true – ie regardless of difficulty and equipment – 3000 per week, my loss would be 12 lbs.

This makes perfect sense to me, but sincoeluv seems to be saying this is incorrect, to me he is being illogical.

I have no idea how much activity this equates too, and I know exactly how much food, so of course you are perfectly correct about which is easier. Whether someone addicted to food finds eating less easier than exercising is a different discussion, of course!!

Rereading some of the above posts, for example, say you eat a donut that is 100 calories. That 100 calories is not just calories, and I think this is what throws a lot of people. They think that a calorie is a calorie. (And I am no expert here, just have been studying this, so feel free to disagree or correct me!) Processed carbs and sugar affect your body’s insulin level dramatically. So not only did you ingest 100 calories, but your insulin spike will force the resulting sugar into fat cells. So no, a calorie isn’t just a calorie. Like one researcher wrote “Nobody ever got fat eating broccoli”

That is the basic premise of fasting: when you fast, your insulin level drops ( the longer you fast, the lower it goes, and the body burns stored fat, which is an even better, more efficient source of energy). Again, hence the 16:8, 19:5, etc fasting plans.

So exercising to burn that 100 calorie donut is an exercise in futility. Yes, you burn 10″ calories, but can you outrun the insulin effects?

Check this post out

https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/exercise-futility-exercise-iii/

Hi milena:

In addition to the above, if you look at the number 5 thread in this post ( https://thefastdiet.co.uk/forums/topic/the-basics-for-newbies-your-questions-answered/) you will find pretty much all beliefs and opinions on exercise that have been posted on this site somewhere or another. In addition, if you look at my 13Feb15 post on the main thread on metabolism, there is reference to a twins study that showed that it is genetic and many people do not get a ‘one for one’ benefit from exercise. In other words, if they think for whatever reason they have exercised enough to burn 500 calories, many people actually have only burned 300 or less.

Exercise is the best thing you can do for your health (except if you smoke, stop smoking), but all research shows it is not very helpful for weight loss.

Hi

At the risk of sounding very thick, I’ve learned lots but still not why. There are beliefs and opinions, but nowhere can I see why.

I put the question to my engineer hubby and he says its logical and theoretically, if food calories eaten (or rather not eaten) and workout calories are the same amount of energy, the result should be the same. I have put the question to my neice who has just got a first class honours degree in physics. Ill wait to see if she knows.

Perhaps no one knows?

The laws of thermodynamics are not repealed in the human body. A calorie is a calorie whether it is consumed for energy or burned, but your body may respond differently depending on how much you eat what you eat, when you eat it and what kind of exercise you do.

Some simple examples, protein takes more calories to digest than carbohydrate so if you eat the same number of calories of each fewer calories are available to your body to store if it is protein. Fat is digested more slowly and causes a much more gentle blood sugar rise than carbs and so less insulin is produced reducing fat storage.

If you do low intensity exercise like walking or jogging you consume glycogen and your body will restock it before storing fat. If you do high intensity resistance exercise your body uses additional energy (calories) repairing and strengthening muscle.

Genetics do play a role with this but how genes are expressed can be influenced by practices like fasting and exercise.

Hi milena:

Your math is correct (with the genetic component a variable). I’ve never disputed that. I’ve simply maintained that most people are not able to utilize the calorie burning results of exercise to obtain material weight loss results because they do not have the ability, willingness or time. I also have pointed out that genetically, many people do not get a ‘one for one’ – so while one person might burn 3500 from any given exercise, another may only burn 2500 from the same exercise. Thus it cannot be said that if you walk X extra steps, you will burn Y extra calories and lose Z amount of weight – that will vary quite a bit person by person, even though the math is quite clear. The individual experiment I posted in the exercise thread is an unscientific example – according to the ‘math’, I should have lost 7 pounds more than I did lose.

I have couched all of this against the expectations many (not all) start the diet with. If they think they will lose X amount doing 5:2, and then think they will lose 2X because they also exercise, many will be quite disappointed when they don’t lose 2X and end up quitting 5:2 (or any other diet, for that matter). I simply try to warn people that their exercise may not lead to the additional weight loss they expect in hopes that they understand and don’t stop trying to lose weight because 5:2 (or any other diet they might be on) does not work.

5:2 works, but because of god knows how many variables, works differently for each person that exercises (or does not exercise, for that matter).

That is my only point.

Hi Sincoeluv – yet again – we must stop meeting like this!

Well near enough the figures I got were slightly different to yours and those figures equate 5000 steps to a pound a week – depending on variables of course. But whether thst amount of exercise gives that amount of weightloss misses the point and clouds the issue.

But as you say, even an extra 1/2lb a week would be around 2lbs a month, 20-25 lbs in a year.

Significant.

The logic therefore, is correct.

hi fit

I only asked why, and you given the best answer so far.

I am not the least bit keen on exercise, for weightloss or for health. Sad eh? I get no pleasure from it, though in my younger days loved it. But, having also a sad life, did a bit of reading. OH puts a chain around my neck and drags me out for walks – walking to work is 20 paces, including the detour to the bathroom – because he things moving more will help my weightloss. So I go, except when I have the excuse not to. My son is now dragging me by a chain to the gym.

Its a hard life.

To show willing – Ive decided this month go concentrate on exercise, reluctantly. OH bought me the fitbit, cos I like gadgets and he knows I can be bribed by gadgets – to guage 10000 steps, the internet said I could lose a pound if I did this – the carrot was now on front of the donkey!

Then I read simcoeluvs remarks. then read more. The logic was it could make a difference, hence my question. Cos 10000 steps every day is a challenge.

But for this particular fatty, 10% or 50% or anything extra is a decent enough contribution. So I am – albeit very reluctantly – off to exercise to help my weightloss. Damn!!!

thankyou fit.

Got to 9000 on my first day yesterday, including a walk before bedtime.

A first.

Not thrilled, though.

Hi everyone,

Happy that I found your post and going to steer things back to alternate fasting methods. I have been a strict 5.2 follower for about 6 months, happy with weight loss (started 60kg and I only wanted to lose about 5kg, have lost 4kg and plateaued) but due to circumstance am changing things up this week. I am moving back to Australia from London soon and so have a lot of dinners with friends this week and couldn’t fit in my fasts.

So I thought I could fast during the day and eat only at night. I’m a bit of a strange one because by the time I get home on a fast day I generally don’t feel like eating and so have got to a point where I don’t eat any calories on a fast day (only calories are from black coffee in the morning).

Last night for dinner I ate WAY too much, I actually felt ill afterwards, and I still feel full and it is 12 o’clock. That is why you SHOULD NOT GO to all you can eat BBQ rib restaurants for dinner. Tonight I will be much more sensible and choose a healthier option. I expect to keep my weight the same but you never know…

Unlike most of the folks here I’m doing 5:2 for the health benefits. Looking better is a side benefit. One thing about exercising, I can make my body look better by adding a few lbs of muscle where I need it. Unlike losing fat when you have no control where it falls off.

Ever since the concept of intensity was added to my workouts I strongly dislike them. I do not like working out, but I love the results. Lifting heavy with little rest or doing sprints is no fun. But it is over quickly. I can handle 14 minutes of cardio or 30 minutes of weights 4 times a week.

The difference in quality of life is huge. At 64 YO movement is a joy, I can dance for hours, sex never better and my Dr is astonished that my vitals and blood chem is that of a healthy 25 YO.

For me exercise is a no brainer.