Merged Intermittent Fasting -- Good Idea or Not?

[pakeha]

...The reason I started the 5:2 diet ... is for the possible future health benefits that are indicated by intermittent fasting. A few cms off my midriff is merely a perk.

While quitting smoking after 39 years may have probably future health benefits, I'm happy to stack the deck in my favour with a diet change that hardly requires any effort to maintain.

Yes, those studies indicating possible future health benefits from intermittent fasting, plus the simplicity and adaptability of the 5:2.

I'm also one who stopped smoking after a 40 year habit. It was reading up on radiation in our surroundings and all that after Fukushima that provided the motivation for me. I'd no idea that tobacco contained radio-active elements or how that could be.
Of course, cannibis does as well, for the same reasons.

I thought I'd chime in with my results trying the fasting diet again.

I couldn't do it.

I mean, I tried to 'fast' a couple of days, but what happened is that I got extremely tired, irritable, irrationally sad, huge headaches, and the night after one of those days I slept for twelve hours. I'm one of those people who is always kinda hungry and am used to that, but the day after even failed fasting I'd be ravenous. ...

Other posters will chime in, of course, but I found that fasting from lunch to lunch twice a week is the easiest way for me to go. Remember, you also have a limited calorie in-take during those 24 hours. Make the most of those calories, is my advice.
No-one needs huge headaches!

 

[SomedayGirl]

My interpretation was that lunch to lunch isn't what 5:2 is going for. It's not 24 clock hours it's actually more like 36 (ex. from dinner Monday night thru breakfast Wednesday morning and then from dinner Thursday night thru breakfast Saturday morning). The result of that is you are subsisting on 1000-1200 calories for what in actuality is three days, not two. Given those parameters it would be almost impossible not to lose weight but I can also see how it could play havoc with energy and emotions on fast "days".

I've only done one day but aside from a some discomfort and minor irritability, which once they reached my tolerance threshold I took as my cue to eat, it went fine. A couple weird things happened but nothing that would put me off from continuing at this point. We'll see if I feel the same on day two...

 

[pakeha]

Thanks for the heads-up, SomedayGirl.
Next time around, I'll do 36 hours, not 24.

 

[Trakar]

Again, the beauty of the 5:2 diet is its flexibility.Which is one of the benefits of the 5:2 diet. You're not constantly depriving your body of calories - only intermittently. You can eat what you like on the other days of the week and still burn fat.

And, as the Mayo articles note, exercise is best combined with dieting in order to maintain the weight loss.Just as per the Mayo articles I cited. Exercise helps maintain the weight loss.

The problem, for me, is that I don't lose weight very well in simply a low calorie regimen, My body seems to want to completely shut down rather than burn stored calories. And it doesn't just shut down while I'm not eating, it seems to shut down until I'm consuming considerably more calories than I normally do for an extended period.

When I increase physical activity, there really aren't any of the negative side effects and weight loss begins within a few days without any real or significant reduction in calories, my appetite simple prefers different types of food than what I prefer when I'm not getting a lot of exercise (eg. more protein, fiber and complex carbohydrates; less sugary, fatty foods).

((oh, and yes, completely nonscientific and totally anecdotal))

 

[Dr. Keith]

I thought I'd chime in with my results trying the fasting diet again.

I couldn't do it.

I mean, I tried to 'fast' a couple of days, but what happened is that I got extremely tired, irritable, irrationally sad, huge headaches, and the night after one of those days I slept for twelve hours. I'm one of those people who is always kinda hungry and am used to that, but the day after even failed fasting I'd be ravenous.

I'm no expert on this. Yesterday was my third "fast" day. I like how it is going, but I can certainly see how it would be very frustrating in your case.

I am an expert on trying to adapt to new things and there are generally two approaches: hard core and slow adaptation.

You essentially tried hard core: strictly limited to 600 calories. Maybe you could try slow adaptation. I'm not sure what it would look like, but here is a stab:

Week 1: Strictly track caloric intake on "fast" days. No limit, but write everything down. Everything. Look it up if it doesn't have a number on it. Yes, even the banana. And the creamer. Everything. It's just two days.

Week 2: Strictly track caloric intake on "fast" days and try to reduce it by 20% from the previous week.

Week 3: Strictly limit intake to Week 1 minus 20%.

Week 4: Try to limit intake to Week 1 minus 40%.

Week 5: Strictly limit intake to Week 1 minus 40%.

Continue until you reach a week where the limit actually made you feel really bad. Add a few calories and stick there for a couple of weeks. Then try to reduce again.

Keep a dairy of what you eat on the fast days. One good thing will be that you can see the things that are high in calorie but not very important to you and get rid of them first.

The key is you are only dieting 2 days a week. The rest of the week just try not to over eat too much. I find a very good, but not overdone, breakfast makes the day after fasting less of a binge day.

If you can't get your calories down significantly for those two days, think about doing less reduction but on three days. Three days would suck more than two, but 1200 calories per day for three days may be easier for you to maintain.

Sure, this will take much longer than if you just pushed through it, but you aren't going to push through it, so this has a better chance of working than nothing!

The key is to find something that works for you. This is a mental game just as much as a physical one.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Thanks for the heads-up, SomedayGirl.
Next time around, I'll do 36 hours, not 24.

The good thing is you are full or sleeping for at least 16 of those hours. If you space out the "meals" you get about 100 calories every 4 hours. Not too bad. [If I keep up the rationalization enough, tomorrow will be sooo easy . . . ]

 

[Soapy Sam]

Definitely to be avoided is non-intermittent fasting.

 

[pakeha]

Not too bad at all.
Thinking up 100 calorie meal combinations should be fun, too.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Not too bad at all.
Thinking up 100 calorie meal combinations should be fun, too.

I've tried budgeting 200 for dinner, just to avoid going to bed hungry. As a male that gives me 400 for the rest of the day. Yesterday, I only had 200 during the day and barely hit 200 for dinner. Considered having a small ice cream right before bed but just wasn't really hungry so I passed.

I had biscuits in the oven within 10 minutes of waking up though!

I've actually found that jogging in the morning on "fasting" days is pretty effective at pushing back my first "meal" as I can't eat for a few hours afterwards. I was surprised by that. I really thought it would make me more hungry.

PS: Pickles are 0 calories!

 

[EHocking]

The problem, for me, is that I don't lose weight very well in simply a low calorie regimen, My body seems to want to completely shut down rather than burn stored calories. And it doesn't just shut down while I'm not eating, it seems to shut down until I'm consuming considerably more calories than I normally do for an extended period.

When I increase physical activity, there really aren't any of the negative side effects and weight loss begins within a few days without any real or significant reduction in calories, my appetite simple prefers different types of food than what I prefer when I'm not getting a lot of exercise (eg. more protein, fiber and complex carbohydrates; less sugary, fatty foods).

((oh, and yes, completely nonscientific and totally anecdotal))

Fair enough.

What ever works for you is the way to go, I guess.

 

[EHocking]

I've tried budgeting 200 for dinner, just to avoid going to bed hungry. As a male that gives me 400 for the rest of the day. Yesterday, I only had 200 during the day and barely hit 200 for dinner. Considered having a small ice cream right before bed but just wasn't really hungry so I passed.

I had biscuits in the oven within 10 minutes of waking up though!

I've actually found that jogging in the morning on "fasting" days is pretty effective at pushing back my first "meal" as I can't eat for a few hours afterwards. I was surprised by that. I really thought it would make me more hungry.

PS: Pickles are 0 calories!

and strawberries.

When I first started the diet I'd have poached eggs in the morning and a lo-cal (28) cup of soup for lunch to get me over the hungery pangs. After only about a month I was skipping the breakfast and having the soup.

Now I eschew both and that leaves me the whole 600 calories to blow at dinner. As I've said before, my wife and I often go out to restaurants on fast days, and if I stick to something like fish and salad I can lever in a martini and a white wine as well. Dinners this week were steak, a large portobello mushroom and asparagus or green beans washed down with a shiraz.

Oh, and for snacking? Popcorn. Not the packaged stuff, but popping corn done in a microwave with no oil.

 

[EHocking]

My interpretation was that lunch to lunch isn't what 5:2 is going for. It's not 24 clock hours it's actually more like 36 (ex. from dinner Monday night thru breakfast Wednesday morning and then from dinner Thursday night thru breakfast Saturday morning). The result of that is you are subsisting on 1000-1200 calories for what in actuality is three days, not two. ...

The 5:2 diet from the original thread (e.g., Mosley's) is mere 500cal for a woman and 600cal for a man on fast days - whenever you wish to consume it. So dinner to dinner (24hrs) is sufficient according to Mosley. He came to that conclusion balancing effect and convenience.

Of course going longer while consuming less might have more effect, but frankly it is such a pain in the arse to maintain that most people fall of the wagon with this approach, thus Mosley's suggested compromise.

 

[pakeha]

and strawberries.

When I first started the diet I'd have poached eggs in the morning and a lo-cal (28) cup of soup for lunch to get me over the hungery pangs. After only about a month I was skipping the breakfast and having the soup.

Now I eschew both and that leaves me the whole 600 calories to blow at dinner. As I've said before, my wife and I often go out to restaurants on fast days, and if I stick to something like fish and salad I can lever in a martini and a white wine as well. Dinners this week were steak, a large portobello mushroom and asparagus or green beans washed down with a shiraz.

Oh, and for snacking? Popcorn. Not the packaged stuff, but popping corn done in a microwave with no oil.

Those are all great tips, EHocking.
Fish and salad at restaurants is definitely the way to go as far as I can see.
But then, I live in Spain and the fish is fantastic here.

And the veg.
If you have access to good quality veg, try reducing a cauliflower to flowerettes and chopping the principal stalk and stems into bite sized pieces. Frozen cauliflower is a decent alternative, of course. Chop a carrot and an onion into small pieces, put all that in a micro-wave proof vessel, drizzle with decent olive oil, season with spices (my favourite mix is garam masala, followed by Ras El Hanout*) and nuke it for 20 minutes.

You can also prepare this dish by browning the chopped onion and carrot in the oil in a good sized pot, then lowering the heat, add the cauliflower and cover the pot, stir gently and add water as needed until the cauliflower is at the point you like, be it tender, crisp, whatever.

Serve it a good protein source and enjoy!


I'm sure everyone has their own stratagems and tricks for calorie intake on those fasting days and I put this simple, simple option out in the hopes it can help or inspire fellow 5:2ers.


*I buy Ras El Hanout from our village's Moroccan grocer, rather than make it myself.

 

[EHocking]

Bung caulie flowerettes in a blender and chop fine, boil or steam.
A low/no cal alternative to rice (which gives you a hint on how fine to chop)

Tonight's dinner was chicken curry.

 

[pakeha]

^
That's a new one for me! Thanks.

 

[MikeG]

The 5:2 diet from the original thread (e.g., Mosley's) is mere 500cal for a woman and 600cal for a man on fast days - whenever you wish to consume it. So dinner to dinner (24hrs) is sufficient according to Mosley. ....

Yes, well, sort of......

Dinner doesn't signal the end of your restraint for the day (otherwise, you could eat whatever you wanted for dinner). You actually restrain yourself until breakfast the following day, so from one evening, through the whole of the fast day, and until breakfast the following day, (30-32 hours ish) you only eat 600 calories.

One of the important lessons of the 5:2 diet is not to be too pedantic, though. That's for other regimes. The beauty of this regime is that you essentially skip snacks and lunch, and have a low-carb dinner, a couple of times a week. You aren't calorie counting every last thing that goes down your throat for the rest of your life, like the unrealistic (and thus failing) diets of old. Before you know it you'll be on a 6:1 regime.

 

[Old man]

Keep a dairy...

Yea, my uncle did that for years, and he didn't gain any weight until after he sold the cows...

 

[cosmicaug]

Those are all great tips, EHocking.
Fish and salad at restaurants is definitely the way to go as far as I can see.
But then, I live in Spain and the fish is fantastic here.

What part of Spain?

 

[cosmicaug]

This might be semi-off-topic but perhaps it might be of interest to some on this thread:

 

[pakeha]

I live as far from the coast as is possible, yet even in my village (in the hill country to the north of Madrid) we have a wide variety of fresh fish daily.