Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Fasting / 5:2 diet

Talk about intermittent fasting and 5:2, including what’s worked for others. Mumsnet hasn't checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. You may wish to speak to a medical professional before starting any diet.

5:2 Diet Thread Part Six! Now's the time to de-lurk and chat with us..

984 replies

GreenEggsAndNichts · 25/10/2012 12:49

The continuing thread for those of us following either the 5:2 diet or the alternate-day fasting diet. Both are two versions of Intermittent Fasting, which you can read more about here.

The 5:2 diet was featured on Horizon in August, and essentially requires you to fast for 2 non-consecutive days per week. The other 5 days, you can eat what you like. Alternate-day fasting is just how it sounds; you fast every other day. By "fasting", we mean that we keep our calorie consumption very low, around 500 calories on average, on those days.

Here is a list of the links we've gathered so far about this diet. I hope I haven't left many out, but we've filled several threads by now. Please share if you find something particularly useful, and we'll add it for the next thread.

First things first, here are links to some of our previous threads: most recent one before that another one.

Another thread which breadandwine has started is a good resource for some of the links and tips that get lost in these big threads. In addition to sharing links, we try to condense some of our top tips for fasting there. Keep in mind, we all do this differently, so these are just tips, not rules.

frenchfancy has a recipe thread over here, please post any low-calorie recipes there so they don't get lost in these bigger threads!

Here is the link to the BBC article regarding Michael Mosley's findings, which was featured on Horizon.

is a link to the first part of the aforementioned Horizon, subsequent parts of that episode are linked on that page.

A blog post here gives some of the scientific explanation for why this way of eating helps you to not only lose weight, but improve your all-around health.

A Telegraph article which comments on the diet and gives a brief overview.

A study discussed here gives commentary specifically addressing the effect of this diet on obese people (both men and women), with regard to both health and weight loss. ("After 8 weeks of treatment, participants had an average 12.5 lbs reduction in body weight and a 4 cm decrease in waist circumference. Total fat mass declined by about 12 lbs while lean body mass remained relatively constant.) it also mentions "Plasma adiponectin, a protein hormone that is elevated in obesity and associated with heart disease, dropped by 30%. As did LDL cholesterol (25%) and triglycerides (32%).")

Important link if you are currently your ideal BMI: this appears to suggest the benefits for women at a lower BMI might not be seeing the same health benefits that are found on men at their ideal BMI.

And for those already fasting, here is a link to 100 snacks under 100 calories. We tend to favour lots of hot drinks during the day (count your milk if you use it!)

Another food link, here is a link to the BBC Good Food site, with a list of low-calorie soups.

We mentioned BMR and TDEE often. Total Daily Energy Expenditure (TDEE) quantifies the number of calories you burn in a day. This measure is best estimated by scaling your Basal Metabolic Rate to your level of activity. TDEE is critical in tailoring your nutrition plan to desired fitness goals. Here is a link to a calculator to help you figure out how many calories you should be eating in a day.

A BIG THANK YOU to all who have been contributing, btw. Most of us are learning this way of eating as we go along. All of the links above have been posted by others in our previous threads, and they've been very helpful. Sorry if I haven't given credit where it's due, but it was just enough of a job getting them all in one post this afternoon. Wink

Come join us, and tell us about your experiences with this diet!

OP posts:
EnidNightshade · 01/11/2012 19:59

Yes, Milimelo I tried that on my first fast day, so fasted Monday evening to Tuesday afternoon.

Today's my second fast and I had a proper dinner last night so have to wait til tomorrow. I think I prefer lunch to lunch, but it hasn't gone badly today - had 140 cals worth of pumpkin seeds, a clementine and 2 squares of dark choc at about 4 o'clock. Plus tons of black coffee and camomile tea throughout the day, and then a small cup of miso soup just now.

I'm hate calorie counting as it is all so fiddly and i can't be bothered to weigh stuff etc, but I think I'm well under 500 for today. Feel very energised - love this WOE!!

Next time I will go back to the lunch to lunch approach, I think.

Skinnyeye · 01/11/2012 20:03

And if I don't manage it there's always Tuesday

EnidNightshade · 01/11/2012 20:04

Yes, frenchfancy I see what you mean. i think you have to be strict about breaking the fast with an ordinary meal, not a big feast. But then, I did find that I got full up extraordinarily quickly - didn't eat as big a dinner as I would usually have as I ended up leaving some of it (unheard of as I am a clean-the-plate type!)

nminx · 01/11/2012 20:04

Aw ToffeeChops that's so nice and encouraging, thank you!
It is a definitely going in the right direction, just slower than I'd hoped....
However knowing its doable for life is such a reassurance isn't it?

Skinnyeye · 01/11/2012 20:18

We are still in the very early sages of this new wol. We each need to do what works best for us and play around with it until it fits. The better it suits your life, your body and your needs the more sustainable it becomes. There will be ups and downs but we are in for the long haul and all in it together Grin

ManOnBoard · 01/11/2012 20:25

EnidN milimelo This WOE is new to all of us but are you proposing 24 hours without eating anything? There are no rules laid out but if there were it sounds like you are severely bending them. I, and it appears most on here, consider the "rule" to be 500cals from waking up in the morning until you go to sleep at night. Unless you are having zero calories for 24 hours it sounds like you are simply varying the time of day that you eat the majority of your calories, not really fasting.

EnidNightshade · 01/11/2012 20:39

Yes - I don't really get that part, tbh. My tactic has been no calories for at least 16hrs, and then a small snack if needed. I was thinking of it in terms of 3 meals per day, so I missed dinner on Monday and breakfast on Tuesday, had a v.small lunch on Tuesday and then a normal sized dinner.

I'm aiming to build up to 24 hours with no calories.

Does this sound wrong? I'm still cutting out two meal's worth and getting a good long fast in (so hopefully getting the invisible health benefits).

ManOnBoard · 01/11/2012 20:56

We have all based this WOE on what DrMM did and that was apparently 500cals from Tuesday dinner until breakfast on Thursday, so roughly 36 hours. As I said earlier what you are suggesting just sounds like varying your meal times

mumofcrazynamedkids · 01/11/2012 23:03

i agree with both what skinny says and manonboard we do have to find what works for us, we are all different in our targets, expectations, limitations etc, but I also think that part of what works is that we have 2 nights sleep as well as a day of limited calories, as MOB says approx 36 hours with just 500 cals, ordinarily we all do about 12 hours a night on a daily basis, that's just evening and sleep, so the 16 hour thing which may or may not be important, Dr MM didn't really talk about this, won't i don't believe work on it's own....although I absolutely have no evidence to support that belief, but I do think it's good for people to try out different things and see what works for them, I just wouldn't want anyone to get too disheartened if what they are trying is very different from what many of us is finding works, and then give up.

all the different experiments must add to our understanding and group knowledge, which has to be a good thing? just make sure you report back so we can all keep track !

tonight I've stolen a quarter of a slice of buttered toast off the kids leftovers, on top of my 500, no big deal really, part cross with myself, but part pleased that I managed to resist the bucket of leftover halloween sweets and treats!

bed now and avoid any further temptation, looking forward to fruit yogurt and waffles with my kids for breakfast tomorrow!

Breadandwine · 01/11/2012 23:58

Hi folks

As has been said often, we're all feeling our own way with this new system - and I for one, am finding it very liberating. The 'rules' are so flexible that we can all put our own interpretation on them, providing we:

Stick to less than 25% per cent of the recommended calories (meaning

ManOnBoard · 02/11/2012 00:53

B&W Cannot agree with this 24 hour period as this could easily mean that over both days of the fast(?) you could easily exceed your daily calorie allowance by simply having a large lunch one day and a large evening meal the next. The Horizon programme and DrMM only ever mentioned fasting for a day which does not mean any 24 hour period. On a few forums I have read people loading up at 9:30pm and the next day having two 250/300cal meals then eating again at 10pm. I do agree that we are all finding our way but by conflating these two methods we are detracting from the simplicity of this WOE. As I mentioned earlier this is not a fast it is just varying your meal times.

Piebaldrider · 02/11/2012 06:52

Muscle weighs more than fat.
Muscle weighs more than fat.
Muscle weighs more than fat.
Muscle weighs more than fat.
Muscle weighs more than fat.

I have been to the gym 5 days out of 7 and that's on top of my normal stuff, i didn't go mad but i did work each time.

I did 4:3 and lost about a pound, a little disappointing but i must remember
Muscle weighs more than fat.

This is why i didn't ever weigh myself before and now im going to be scales obsessed again.

A few quick observations.. When i first started and lost a lot of fat quickly i ate two meals a day and took in around 600 calories , now i eat 1 meal a day and take in 500 calories have upped my exercise and am losing less. I ate more protein at the start too but cut down as i thought it would help . I do fast for well over the 24 hour period but always have. I wish i had kept more of a food diary etc so i could see what i was doing exactly at any time so i could see if one thing was consistently better than another.

A pound off is better than a pound on so onwards and upwards ... Have great day

TellMeLater · 02/11/2012 07:29

Pie the poor movement on you scales is more likely to be caused by water retention than muscle mass. When you exercise more than normal, your muscles will retain water to aid their recovery. Muscles do weigh a little bit more than fat but gaining muscle mass is not easy, espeially for women, but it is incredibly easy for us to retain water and then lose is again fairly quickly.

Laska42 · 02/11/2012 08:02

Yo! another pound down this week and another inch off the waist since i last measured it a couple of weeks ago..

Come on Mumsnet where the Happy Bunny emoticon? ill make do with this GrinGrin

Eating now until Sunday...Grin
Ahh and Friday night WineWine to look forward too...

Blimey Cyclistist .. I was out in Newport yesterday and noticed yesterday that someone's opened up a chilli shop on the Isle of Wight!!! We're being dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st Century.. will be getting Ceefax next!

Laska42 · 02/11/2012 08:04

Thats a whole stone lost now since August I'm now the least i've weighed in 20 years and well into normal BMI.. so happy!!

frenchfancy · 02/11/2012 08:52

Well Done Laska!

I think the 24 hour (rather than 36 hour) fast period could work PROVIDED your weekly calorie intake were still in deficit.

This is much easier to work out if you simply have the 500 cals for 2 days a week for example:

(5 x 2350) + (2x500) = 12750 which is a deficit of 3700 cals on my weekly maintenance calories (16450).

But if I do like EnidN is suggesting I might have

Monday - 1800 (fasting from lunch but 500 at dinner)
Tuesday - 1200 (fasting til diner then diner with wine)
Wednesday - 2350 (normal day)
Thursday - 1800 (as Monday)
Friday - 1200 (as Tuesday)
Saturday - 2350 (Normal day)
Sunday - 2350 ( Normal day)

So total for the week = 13050 So I would still lose weight, but slower than with the first method.

FOr me the problem would be making sure I ate normally for the other meals. It would mean the diet effectively took up 4 days a week rather than 2. We have no way of knowing if the health benefits are different.

TheCyclistist · 02/11/2012 09:15

Top of the morning to you Laska and well done on another milestone (happy bunny emoticon) Smile . I'm not too far behind you with the healthy BMI and that'll be the first time for a very long time. The weightloss for me on this has been great but the feeling of health has been just as great.

On Chilli shops Laska , is there any particular brand of red hot chilli sauce you would recommend they sell Wink

After another touch and go Fasting day yesterday got two days of whatever I want till Sunday now, so just about to head out for a long cycle before the onslaught of wholemeal bread and porridge Grin

Good luck and health to everyone today, remember keep the faith keep the fast or as Michael Mosley would say EAT FAST AND LIVE LONG

mumofcrazynamedkids · 02/11/2012 09:38

morning all, well weigh in and 2 pounds gain, but I am really not surprised, overindulgent eating/drinking fri-mon becasue of birthday party and foodie guests, 2 fasts since, so I am telling myself to be pleased, because if I hadn't fasted I would probably have gained 5 pounds, so by next fri i should be back to where i was last week.

i do think I have to get it into my head that there is always going to be a direct correlation between what i eat and what I weigh, sounds obvious right? but it's easy to slip into expecting a loss because i am doing this WOE, rather than remembering that sometimes the way I am living the rest of the time will have an impact too.

however really pleased for laska and pie great steady progress, I plan on joining you in that by next friday!

Have a great weekend all, am off out in the sunshine with my kids, need to do some running around and burn off the planned fish and chips later! Blush

Breadandwine · 02/11/2012 11:07

"B&W Cannot agree with this 24 hour period as this could easily mean that over both days of the fast(?) you could easily exceed your daily calorie allowance by simply having a large lunch one day and a large evening meal the next. The Horizon programme and DrMM only ever mentioned fasting for a day which does not mean any 24 hour period. On a few forums I have read people loading up at 9:30pm and the next day having two 250/300cal meals then eating again at 10pm. I do agree that we are all finding our way but by conflating these two methods we are detracting from the simplicity of this WOE. As I mentioned earlier this is not a fast it is just varying your meal times."

Hi MoB I understand your concerns, but, as Laska says, if you keep an eye on your calories you should lose weight. The key words in your response are 'large lunch' and 'large evening meal' - I doubt if that's part of anyone's eating plan.

To go from 1pm on one day to 6pm the next on

ManOnBoard · 02/11/2012 12:32

B&W frenchfancy 5:2 Eat whatever you like (within reason) for 5 days eat no more than 500cals for 2. Yet you both seeem to be suggesting calorie counting on 4 days a week. At work we have a Friday lunch club where I have my main meal of the day and usually something light in the evening. On Saturday I usually have a late breakfast and then we usually go out for dinner in the evening, similar to what is being suggested and believe me this is not fasting or good for weight loss. Yes "large lunch" and "large evening meal" but you appear to imply that these should now be in moderation, so again affecting the times outside of the fast period. Sorry if I appear to be particularly vehement in my dismissal of your position but I maintain that this is just calorie counting and is certainly not fasting.

Breadandwine · 02/11/2012 13:52

Oops, sorry Laska and frenchfancy for mixing you up! Blush

MoB we may well have to agree to disagree on this.

However, you say,
"At work we have a Friday lunch club where I have my main meal of the day and usually something light in the evening. On Saturday I usually have a late breakfast and then we usually go out for dinner in the evening, similar to what is being suggested and believe me this is not fasting or good for weight loss."

But, if you were to restrict your 'something light in the evening' and your 'late breakfast' to >600cals in total (in your case), then that would fit the criteria - except that it extends over two days - of fasting for more than 24 hours. To get the 16 hour fast in, you'd have to have lunch instead of breakfast. But to my mind, that's fine. It's a convoluted way of doing it, and I wouldn't necessarily recommend it, but if someone wants to take that route and call it 5:2, I'd support that.

I'll have to dig out the research where I've seen this mentioned. Trouble is, there's a lot of stuff to wade through out there!

Hope you enjoyed your lunch! Smile

Bordercollielover · 02/11/2012 14:59

Breadandwine: I find fasting, from eg 8 pm on day 1 to 8 a.m on day 3 is quite manageable. I don't eat although I have unlimited hot drinks, a few of which contain a small amount of "milk".
However I can only do this if I have not eaten high GI foods on day 1. If I eat lots of carbs in the form of non starchy vegetables, lots of vegan fats in the form of coconut fat, avocados, olives and nuts and plenty of protein in the form of seeds then I have no real trouble with not eating for 36 hours. On the other hand if I eat fruit or grains, including flour, then I suffer from unbearable hunger, cravings and dizziness and a desperate desire for more of the same a few hours after eating. None of this will necessarily apply to you, but it might be worth experimenting with before you go for your longer fasts.
Good luck, it certainly feels good afterwards!!

ManOnBoard · 02/11/2012 15:12

B&W My point is that you are extending the 2 in 5:2 and changing this WOE to 120:2x24. There is still no real evidence to support any of this apart from DrMM who fasted 2 days a week and I really wonder why anyone would want to complicate something so simple ie Monday - eat normally, Tuesday - restrict yourself to 500cals, Wednesday - eat normally. This alternative may be successful but is not 5:2 and perhaps shpuld not be given too much space on a thread labelled 5:2. Another major point that you seem to be ignoring is how your body is responding during sleep the day following a fast.

GirlWithTheMouseyHair · 02/11/2012 15:26

I agree the simplicity is what's clear for me personally. Do whatever you want/feel comfortable doing but I personally love that I can eat normallly some days, restrict to under 500cals on others, simples.

I am well and truly off the wagon at the moment. Out for dinner tonight so am just going to fast until then with celery to snack on to at least give my body a break from all the insane overindulgences. So looking forward to being able to fast again properly this weekend

TalkinPeace2 · 02/11/2012 16:40

Weighed myself today : put on a pound this week.
Not a surprise - have only fasted once, have not been to the gym and am a tad stressed (see hurricane Sandy threads)
BUT
As DH and I said, we'll just fast on Monday and get back into it for the rest of the term. So long as all the weight does not go back on in the odd break, we are both better off than where we were in September.

frenchfancy
silly thought, 2350 sounds very high for normal day calories ... are you very tall?
just that my TDEE is a lot lower than that - I'm 5'5"

Swipe left for the next trending thread