I’ve been doing rolling 120 hour fasts for about two months now and they’ve been doing wonders for my weight loss and poor eating habits, but I’ve noticed quite a few people suggest that 96 hour fasts are best for weight loss and I’m wondering if there’s any particular reason why?
Is it somehow less beneficial to do rolling 120 hour fasts compared to 96 hour fasts?
And, while I’m on the subject, is there a set “recovery time” between these fasts where I should eat or can I pretty much do 4-5 days of fasting, 1-2 days of eating and jump back into the next 4-5 day fast?
You do what feels best for you regardless of what you read. The fast that’s best for your goals is the one you’re able to stick to. If that’s 120s then rock it! If rolling 24s are what you can stick to consistently then -that- is the best one, you know?
I do like what someone else said a lot though. Doing shorter fasts repeatedly is like getting on the highway, getting up to speed, driving for a short period and pulling over. Any time you get into full ketosis, you’re up to speed - traveling with the best fat burning (or body healing) per hour. If you stop, you have to spend the time getting back up to speed again. Longer fasts are better as a time investment
Edit: ahh forgot about the recovery. It really comes down to your nutrition, stores, and supplements. Typically I can feel when I need more of something. Sometimes it’s a couple weeks after an extended fast before I feel ready (but I’m also chronically ill). Other times I’ve had less than 500 calories of something nutrient dense and gone straight back into an extended fast. This isn’t something that has a clear answer as it’s going to change based on your body at the time