Fasting Styles

OMAD vs 16:8 — Which Suits You?

Neither approach is objectively "better" — they suit different lives, different goals, and different relationships with food. Here's how to tell which is right for you.

16:8 (a 16-hour fast, 8-hour eating window, usually two meals) and OMAD (23:1, one meal) are both forms of intermittent fasting, but they ask very different things of your day-to-day life.

Where 16:8 tends to fit better

• You want flexibility to eat with family or a partner at more than one point in the day
• You're newer to fasting and want a sustainable long-term habit rather than the most extreme version straight away
• You take medication multiple times a day that needs spacing with food
• You find one large meal genuinely uncomfortable, however it's structured

Where OMAD tends to fit better

• You've already been comfortable with 16:8 or 18:6 for a while and want to go further
• You prefer fewer, bigger decisions about food rather than planning multiple meals
• Your daily routine genuinely only allows for one proper sit-down meal
• You've discussed it with your GP if you're on relevant medication, and there's no reason to hold back

Can you switch between them?

Yes — plenty of people move between 16:8 and OMAD depending on the week, travel, social plans, or simply how they're feeling. There's no rule that says you have to pick one and stick with it forever. This is one of the reasons a flexible app that supports multiple fasting styles, rather than locking you into just one, tends to suit real life better than a single-purpose OMAD-only tracker.

The bottom line

16:8 and OMAD are both legitimate, well-established approaches. The better one is whichever you can actually stick to consistently, safely, and without it taking over your thinking about food.