Fast-5

[ou812]

I downloaded the ebook and read through it. Other than the fasting portion the author endorses eating healthy foods during the 5 hour eating window. Seems, like it would be difficult to maintain as a lifestyle due to social pressures. Just wondering if anyone else has looked at this diet.

[wosnes]

I don't look at "diets" anymore -- at least not as something that I'd give thought to following. "Diets" are good for a laugh and not much more.

[Elspeth]

I've had good experiences with fasting. Last year I was doing alternate day fasting (32-36 hours every other day). I lost over 20 pounds and was feeling great. The reason I gave it it up is exactly what you mentioned: social pressures. I hated not being able to eat dinner with my family and just sitting there with a glass of water was awkward for both me and them. Also, if I wanted to go to lunch or breakfast with friends, I had to figure out which days were my eating days.

I looked at Fast 5 as an alternative to address the dinner problem, but there would still be the issue of breakfast and lunch meals with friends or colleagues. Besides (and I know this sounds crazy) I love coffee. I only drink a cup or two a day, but I really enjoy it. Since I drink it sweetened with half & half, I wouldn't be able to have it in the mornings, and I am too sensitive to caffeine to have it in the late afternoon/evening during a 5-hour window. And finally, I relish long, leisurely weekend breakfasts. I couldn't see giving those up. I know a lot of people really like Fast 5, but it wouldn't work for me.

I eventually settled on Eat Stop Eat, Brad Pilon's program of a 24-hour fast twice a week. The way it works is to stop eating after dinner one night (say, 6:00 p.m.) and not eat anything until dinner the next night (6:00 p.m. or later), two times a week. It solves the issue of dinners, and since I'm only fasting two days a week, it makes it easy to schedule breakfasts/lunches with friends. Brad's e-book is $39, but you don't need that to do ESE. I bought it because I wanted to read up on the research he's done on fasting and its benefits.

The reason I'm combining ESE with No S is that I still felt out of control around food on my non-fasting days, which was undoing the weight loss benefits of fasting. I find the two programs mesh wonderfully. When you're used to going without food for 24 hours, a 5- or 6-hour break between meals is nothing!

Hope this helps. I'd be happy to answer any other questions.

[BrightAngel]

Just wondering if anyone else has looked at this diet.

I first read the Fast-5 e-book about three years ago,
and I tried it out with an eating window from 2 p.m. to 7 p.m..
since my waking hours are 4 a.m. to 8 p.m.
I am an morning person, who greatly enjoys breakfast and lunch,
and I found it extremely difficult to delay eating until 2 p.m.,
and felt very deprived. I spent most of every day just waiting for my window to open.
Fast-5 also didn't bring much of a reduction in my overall day's calories,
as I ate about the same.. just in a smaller time frame.

I like EatStopEat better than Fast-5,
and find it similiar to QOD or the JUDDD alternate day plan,
but the problem with those plans ---and any low calorie day/high calorie day,
is that it is so very easy to overeat on the higher calorie days
and undo the low calorie eating on the lower calorie days.

Combining ESE with NoS could help with that problem---
IF the eating days don't consist in a lot of rich, high-calorie foods.
and, of course, there is still the issue of overdoing it on "S" days.

It is really easy to gain weight while doing "vanilla" No S,
because I find the calories of my 2 "S" days usually offsets (and exceeds)
any calorie deficit I might get during my 5 "N" days,
bringing my total energy intake MORE than my total energy burn.

Every single one of these diets ... including NoS.... is a way to EAT LESS,
and by EAT LESS...it means...eat the same or less than your body burns.
Those particular plans don't require calorie counting,
but each of the plans is intended to have a "built-in" calorie reduction..
which can easily be circumvented by a person who has tendencies to compulsively overeat.
OF COURSE, unless following any food plan (or diet) causes a calorie deficit,
then one isn't rewarded by any weight-loss.

[oolala53]

I, too, read Fast 5 while weighing the plans for calorie reduction without specific meals or calorie counting. I think authors of those books underestimate what binge eaters can do on a free-eating day or in a free eating period. In fact, in my bingeing days, I did most of my eating between 3 and 8 p.m., and it wouldn't have been easy to make myself just wait for 3 p.m. Plus, it doesn't take much ice cream or fudge to make up for not eating a healthy breakfast and lunch.

I think the idea for most of these plans, including No S, is that the days and hours of fasting between meals will affect your natural ability to overeat. I think to some degree it is true, though I still cling to the idea of being able to eat A LOTof chocolate or brownies on my S days. But I think 3 months is not enough time to counterbalance the last 40 years. I'm sticking with it until at least next New Year's Eve, and it's hard to imagine I'll want to to something else. Plus, I do feel worse with less over indulgence these days.

I do think naturally smaller people have a harder time because they have less leeway. A couple of extra bites of a chocolate bar--very small in volume and easy to eat quickly-- makes a bigger impact on them than on a tall, muscle-y guy. but both of those people will probably want those bites.

[Over43]

I have read Fast 5, and The Warrior Diet which seems to be similar. I could tell I wasn't going to eb a winner on those.