I have been doing the 5.2 since April. I don't really need to lose any weight tbh, but would still like some health benefits. I know the health benefits are going to be reduced if I do 6.1 instead of 5.2, would I still get some health benefits if I choose to go down the 6.1 route? also I would have to be more strict with what I eat on the non fast days wouldn't I? Am I making any sense?
I think 5:2 will give the greater health benefits just by virtue of being more frequent but 6:1 is the standard recommendation for those not wanting to lose weight. Try it and see. If you put on weight then do 5:2 for a bit. I find intermittent very flexible in that there are so many different ways of fasting. Some of the ones I know include:
5:2 (500 cal meal) 5:2 (normal meal at the end of 24 hours eg Eat Stop Eat) 5:2/6:1 (zero calorie 36 hour fast) 6:1 (500 cal meal) 6:1 (normal meal at end of 24 hours) 16:8 daily (or 5 days a week) (fast 16 hours, eat only in 8 hour window) Fast 5 (eat in 5 hour window only) Meal skipping (skip lunch or dinner etc to provide a fasting window).
I got to goal weight using standard 5:2 but am maintaining using a combination of the above depending on how I feel (I'm a bit fickle at the moment). But no weight gain so far (in fact, a bit of weight loss).
Experiment with what works best for you. Personally my ideal is still a minimum 24 hour fast at least once a week.
Thank you so much for that information bsshbossh yes I will give the 6.1 a diet, I didn't really think I could be more flexible I thought I had to stick to the 5.2 for the rest of my life. I still want to carry on doing the fast diet but just be a bit more flexible, you've put a nice light on things .