What he argues makes some sense, but his total dismissal of IF paired with low-carb seemed counter-productive.
"The one question that remains unanswered is whether or not the intermittent fast followed in a low-carbohydrate way will lead to these same problems. To me, that point is kind of moot. Why? Because I looked at the IF as a strategy that allowed me to eat a lot of high carb foods that I would normally avoid and not pay the health consequences for it. If I’m going to limit myself to low-carb foods, why go on the IF? I can get the same results just following a regular, whole-food, low-carb diet without having to eat only every other day."
Okay, so you only care about IF if it lets you indulge in high-carbohydrate food, so you aren't even going to try to determine if your thermogenesis argument holds for people doing both IF and low carb?
Considering I'm currently doing a low-carb diet and using mild IF (basically skipping breakfasts and not eating after ~8pm, so roughly 14-16 hours fasting most days) to try to break my weight plateaus and meet my weight loss goals, that paragraph, while valid (and I'm glad he shared it), rubbed me the wrong way and doesn't give me any information to help me determine whether I should be skipping that meal or not.
I was reading a blog post by Dr Jason Fung that compared LCHF with IF. Conclusion was that LCHF is around 70% as effective as IF on insulin levels. You are still maintaining a low insulin level even on eating day, with a significant drop on fasting days. This should, by logic, have greater impact on insulin sensitivity due to long periods of low insulin levels.
His whole blog is quite interesting. His book, The Obesity Code, is a great and easy read.
In my own experience day 3 of a water fast had profound effect on my health. I have some health issues so I closely monitor my blood pressure and blood sugar. On the morning of the fourth day my blood pressure and blood sugar would drop tremendously and stay normal for several months. ymmv
We are missing a lot of context - much of which you can't supply here even if you wanted to. For example, it seems entirely plausible and not exactly rocket science that not eating the wrong foods (for a given person - what "wrong" means may vary widely and wildly depending on their context!) is better than eating it. For an example (of the example), if you eat a lot of high glycemic index foods it's not hard to guess why your blood sugar is doing better without it.
This is the problem with all those reports from people who say they are doing so much better during a fast.
You are right on every point. Water fasting was not Dr. recommended but the profound positive effects were documented by the follow on tests they performed. No one seems to know why it "worked". I dunno if it is knowable at this point. But one thing I do know I was very ill and now I'm a lot better and fasting was a key reason why.
I'm reminded of Ignaz Semmelweis, the doctor associated with hand-washing. Even though he demonstrated clinically that hand-washing reduced sickness/mortality, it took decades to catch on because, "it didn't make sense." I.e., there wasn't sufficient theory to explain WHY it worked.
Just a personal anecdote, but I was getting colds and flu-like symptoms several times per year for years. People I knew often commented on how often I was ill. I did a 3-day fast two years ago, and haven't had much more than a scratchy throat for about two days since. It could be coincidence, but other people have noticed and commented on my healthier state. I haven't significantly changed my behavior otherwise.
I'm not doubting that what you say is true, but I wouldn't necessarily draw a simple cause-and-effect arrow between a single fasting event and your improved long-term health. The fact that you even began a fast suggests you became increasingly conscious of your health at that time and were looking for ways to improve it. Perhaps you also decided at that time -- maybe even subconsciously -- that a healthier lifestyle with better eating and sleep habits would be in your interest. In other words, there is a correlation between your fasting event and your improved health, but not necessary a direct causation.
This reminds me of the reasoning used by a lot of people who've made the link between autism and vaccines. "My child was vaccinated and shortly thereafter she became autistic!" Yes, but children are also vaccinated around the age when the first signs of autism become apparent.
Human minds are incredible pattern-matching machines. Unfortunately, they're so good at it that they often deceive themselves.
It has to be a coincidence. I can't imagine what the health benefits of a single 3-day fast could be that they would be so massive as to change your entire health for years.
A change in gut bacteria could potentially do that. However, normally that is quite difficult to change long term. I seem to have a collection of gut bacteria that give me bad gas quite often without sticking to a very strict diet and I found a few months ago that a five day fast reset that as well as antibiotics. However, either way it gradually returns to the way it was (most of the way back after three months). Good to know that three days of fasting helps some people, since that is much easier than five :/.
Interesting 2 years ago I was up for a operation to implant a tube for dialysis after the 3 day fast before going into hospital my creatine levels improved to the point they canceled the operation.
It should be noted that going from eating a lot of unhealthy food to a 24hr fast might be a little on the dangerous side for some.
The first time I tried it after about 12 or so hours I felt like I was going to pass out. So I ate something to stablize myself. After eating healthier for a while it's much easier to attempt.
I had the same experience. I've been doing intermittent fasting for several months, and after a while I felt that hunger doesn't bother me that much anymore, so I decided to go for a three day fast. I do get slightly elevated blood pressure from time to time, but on the third day of fast I noticed that it dropped to lower than 120. I did a bit of googling, and found that there even were some medical studies looking into effect of fasting and lowering of blood pressure.
This is the most relevant summary: "In both mice and a Phase 1 human clinical trial involving patients receiving chemotherapy, long periods of not eating significantly lowered white blood cell counts. In mice, fasting cycles then “flipped a regenerative switch,” changing the signaling pathways for hematopoietic stem cells, which are responsible for the generation of blood and immune systems, the research showed."
So, mice, and people undergoing chemotherapy. Not exactly (for those who have had friends and relatives ever had to undergo chemotherapy, you will understand what I mean) the common population.
I'll pass on this intermittent fasting "fad" for now!
It's not a fad, there is quite a wealth of research supporting it's efficacy[1][2][3]. That also doesn't mean you need to fast for 3 days straight to consider your fasting intermittent - you can go 16 hours without eating and still reap the benefits. Skip breakfast and concentrate your calories into lunch and dinner - now you are intermittent fasting.
I read all three articles but I can't find where anyone claims that 16 hours of fasting are as beneficial as 3 days from the perspective of rebooting the immune system.
You're correct, there is no evidence to support boosted immune system (that I am aware of) for shorting fasting periods. However, there are a host of health benefits to fasting in general, which is why I wanted to dismiss the notion that it's simply a fad.
"So it's good for losing weight. But not anything magic compared to simply eating less?"
IF is a marginal step in the path of increased health and performance that you should consider, and experiment with, after you've already taken the other, progressively more important steps.
So you're already exercising and maintaining a high level of fitness and athletic output. You're getting good sleep (partly due to the exercise) and meditating. You're eating good, whole foods.
It is in that context that you would then optimize even further - possibly with IF. The question of weight loss strikes me as a bit silly, since by the time you're graduating to IF to eke out marginal increases in health, you're already well past dealing with "weight".
Actually from what I understood about intermittent fasting it is way better than simply eating less.
I'm not a doctor but the mechanisms by which the body burns fat is that it has to send the proper signaling at a cellular level. If you listen to the video here starting at 1h03: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PdJFbjWHEU
Though the video is to understand how energy is used and stored for workout reasons it explains a bit the mechanism whereby the body decides to store fat or convert it to phosphates for semi-immediate use.
I'm convinced that intermittent fasting turns off the body fat storage mechanism and turns on the burn fat mechanism. Unfortunately if you only eat less you never send the signals to your body that it needs to stop storing fat. An intermittent fast is therefore way better than just eating less.
For me intermittent fasting means not eating breakfast and eating around 12h30. I've lost 14 pounds this way and I'm finding it really easy to skip a meal now where I couldn't do it without having a headache before.
Personally I have found that any consistent and conscious change in eating habits typically means losing weight. Also relatively small amount of exercise drops my weight towards ideal level and at very least helps to keep it down.
The only problem is to have good energy levels while dieting/exercising. Because that physical/mental exhaustion is the thing that stops diets. And it's doesn't even need to come from the diet itself, work stress suffices. Just that if the diet adds to total load, then it has to be the first one to go. Being unemployed is not an option.
IF forces you to schedule fewer times to eat, so you eat less. But there are changes to the body when calories are restricted for 16 hour more. Hormonal changes that don't manifest when the body has regular insulin injected into the blood stream.
This is all short term studies. I ate once a day for over a decade, it just means you eat a large meal. If anything stretching your stomach makes over eating easier as you get used to large meals so eating an extra one is easily adds an extra days food. Worse, you end up getting pushed to calorie dense food.
PS: My original thought was it would save a lot of time which it probably did.
>So, mice, and people undergoing chemotherapy. Not exactly (for those who have had friends and relatives ever had to undergo chemotherapy, you will understand what I mean) the common population.
Why would it be any different for the "common population"?
>I'll pass on this intermittent fasting "fad" for now!
Intermittent fasting is a well documented & proven phenomena. It also regularly appears in the form of various articles on HN with many proponents here.
I don't follow it, I like my food. However, a cursory glance through other comment on this thread may give you cause to rethink your pov.
Well have you read the literature on calorie restriction? It increased longevity by a lot -- in mice.
So intermittent fasting also amounts to calorie restriction if you don't binge later.
Everyone's metabolism is different, though. Intermittent fasting can lead to weight loss and avoiding obesity-related problems later. Most people here, being developers or knowledge workers of some kind, probably work late and skip breakfast often, so they do it naturally.
With a "fad" like this, by the time all the research is in 100 years later, it might be too late to try. This is a life decision.
"I'll pass on this intermittent fasting "fad" for now!"
Presumably you've tried it ?
That is to say, starting from a very high baseline of both cardio-vascular fitness and output as well as a high level of muscle training[1] you then tried IF and didn't notice a positive effect in your training or output ?
Fair enough. IANAD and YMMV.
[1] Since you're not going to notice the effects of marginal changes in a loosely coupled, highly variant system anyway. Adding a high flow air filter to your 1997 chrysler minivan probably won't produce noticeable results.
> I'll pass on this intermittent fasting "fad" for now!
It's amazing how people are prone to experiment with this type of things. They're willing to undergo a very unpleasant experience because it might (unlikely) give them a (slight) health improvement.
Going most of the day without eating is hardly "very unpleasant", and a lot of people are happy to play with moderate subtractive means to possibly improve their health or sense or well being. It's a lot more appealing than pharmaceuticals, even if those are provided free.
If nothing else, the dread of doing a short fast is a pretty decent indicator that you should try it. Being tied to a strict eating schedule is awful.
"experiment". Do you really think our evolving ancestors ate every single day, regularly, on schedule? The only experiment here is a modern world that eats every day, regularly.
Not everyone believes the point of life is to maximize pleasant experiences. Or even that the best way to maximize pleasant experiences is to only experience pleasant things.
Fasting can make food taste much better, can focus the mind, might remind people that time if fleeting, or that some people never have enough to eat. People fast for a myriad of complementary reasons.
I agree. And I think the vast majority of people overeat and don't realize it. I think the obesity rates reflect that.
Observe the conversations around these articles every time they pop up: people think it's unhealthy to go without calories for any amount of time. Where does that come from?
I think when someone has cancer, a slight health improvement is big enough.
Furthermore, people experiment with all kinds of things for slight health improvements to stay healthy. Working out is not the most pleasant experience when you think about it, but it becomes pleasant because you mentally associate it with something positive and there are traces of euphoria kicking in when it's a pretty intense workout.
Most people work out to lose weight when it's been years I've told anyone who asked me that for weight loss, working out is more tiring and less effective "calorifically" than simply not eating that extra piece of pie. I've seen people want to lose weight, go for a 20 minute run, then come back and down all kinds of food and still hoping/believing/thinking they're going in the right direction for weight loss and they're eating to recover from the effort.
An Olympic swimmer might need 4,000 calories daily. Most of us don't.
Imho the biggest "but why?" for me come when such people "experiment" but gather no data whatsoever other than "I feel okay/good/bad/<else>". And this can easily get wishful-thinking directed.
I do fasting for 36 hours, night-day-night, 3-4 times per month. I have found it is a liberating experience. I never realized before that just how much time it takes to prepare and consume food.
As for side effects the only noticeable thing is that on the second night of fast I may sleep much less, but that does not make me sleepy during the day when I break the fast.
I generally eat within only a 7-8 hour window everyday, so I fast for 16-17 hours. I find it quite enjoyable. The feeling of hunger before lunch and then having it satiated is great!
If I were to fast for that long, should I ingest anything other than water?
Some vitamin supplements for example? Or maybe a bit of salt?
Or is it really only water?
I modelled my recent 4-day fast on Dr Michael Mosley's Horizon programme [0] in which he eats nothing but a miso soup (under 50 calories) per day and drinks nothing but water. Miso soup has the added benefit of sodium and other electrolytes without any caloric impact.
I personally supplemented my water intake with peppermint tea as that has an incredibly low nutritional footprint and does not contain any extra substances such as caffeine. It's surprising how 'clinical' drinking cold water can feel after a couple of days.
Others here are saying absolutely water only. It would be really interesting for me to find out the effects of these before I fast again, as I am likely to do before the end of the year.
I also found the below article really helpful in giving me an overview.[1]
On days I don't eat, I supplement various vitamins and electrolytes to minimize risks of refeeding syndrome[0] and heart problems[1,2]. I don't know how bad the risks are in practice for these for short fasts (I've only gone up to 3 days), but I am sufficiently paranoid that I supplement anyway. Supplementing electrolytes also means I don't get headaches, restless leg syndrome, or (as much) weak feeling in muscles, all of which I used to get when I tried unsupplemented water fasting.
I also try to break the fast with skim milk or yoghurt so that I'm not phosphate depleted (refeeding syndrome again).
For what it's worth, my supplement regime amounts to: a generic A-Z multivitamin, 800mg potassium chloride, 300mg magnesium citrate (it seems to be important that it's citrate for bioavailability reasons), 800mg calcium, and a B-vitamin complex (as I remember it, vitamin B1, or thiamine, is important when refeeding, for reasons I can no longer find).
When I was fasting (about 2.5 weeks), I ingested nothing but water. I don't think you need to be worried about running out of essential nutrients when you are only fasting for 3 days. Personal experience, of course. No empirical evidence.
Ingesting anything will ruin the fast. Even brushing your teeth becomes tricky, as toothpaste can ruin everything. I ended up using a salt water solution (and an electric tooth brush) to do the job, but in hindsight, I could've used something like ToothSoap. It's extremely important to rinse the mouth thoroughly, so you don't swallow anything.
It is possible to run low on vitamins (depending on how long you go). If it's just 3-7 days, then it doesn't matter as much, but some people go a full 28 days (you can theoretically go about 40 days without causing problems, but as it will take another 40 days to break the fast, it proves to be too much for someone's first time (with 3-7 days working better)).
The step in a water fast that does most people in is the breaking of the fast. The key to a successful water fast is properly breaking the fast. It can be even more difficult, as while any hunger usually goes away within the first day or two, when the fast is first broken (with your first taste of 50% watermelon + 50% water, for example), it will kick the digestive system back into action, and you may easily become overwhelmed by an intense hunger. If you don't have the willpower to ignore this hunger, then you may end up eating something prematurely or eating too much.
The solution that works for most is to either buffer up on vitamins and minerals in the weeks leading up to the fast (which also ensures they don't have any hidden deficiencies), or to start with a juice fast (vegetables blended in a Vitamix, for example).
I'm not clear on the details of why, but I know if the fast isn't properly broken, then the body can react very poorly. I suppose it needs time to get back in the habit of processing food. The main thing to remember about a fast is that it will take as long as you fasted to break it (unless it's 24 hours or less). So if you water fast for 3 days, you'll need another 3 days to ramp back up to normal eating. If you juice fast, then it's 1/3rd of the time (ie, 1 day for a 3-day juice fast).
I've read about people ending up with allergic reactions, swollen joints, pain, and many other issues from improperly breaking the fast. Also, me not remembering or being clear on the details doesn't mean they aren't clearly laid out on sites/articles about this topic. That is, you can search online for a bit, and it should clear things up for you.
I don't know any of the science behind it, but it's my understanding that during long periods of not eating, metabolism gradually slows to a crawl to allow maximum duration from the amount of 'energy' available in the body.
I'd wager it gradually ramps back up again once food is reintroduced, and overeating during this period could probably lead to some pretty hefty weight gain.
My understanding is that you are avoiding calories. More specifically, you are avoiding the bodily processes (especially insulin response, etc.) that accompany digestion.
So water, coffee and tea fit into that. Coffee or tea with milk, however, does not.
I am not sure about the vitamin supplements. Even if they are zero calorie, they have to be digested, etc., in a way that goes beyond coffee and tea ...
I would just wait until lunch/dinner, but I only IF for 16-20 hours at a time.
I used to have coffee and tea while water fasting but not anymore. While coffee helps with the initial headaches and may provide more energy in the following days, the fact that caffeine is a psychoactive drug started to worry me when doing the fasts. Surely, I don't think it causes any damage and by all means, have some if it helps you. But I've noticed it affects my primary goal with fasting: putting my system in a more natural state than before. It took me a while to remove it from my fasting practice.
Although I haven't attempted this myself, I have seen many people attempt to endure a 72 hours fast (as part of diagnosing a potential pheochromocytoma) and the majority experience this as extremely difficult.
I wonder if multiple shorter fasts — e.g., a 24 hours fast once a week — could be as beneficial.
I regularly fast for 20+ hours (calorie restriction, I do drink water because I am not an idiot) once or twice a week. You get very used to it.
While its not something I look forward to, it's purely psychological. A few hours after I miss 'breakfast' my tummy rumbles two or three times and then my body doesn't care anymore.
The max time I've fasted is forty hours and I have to say if you can get past the first fours hours, it's easy. I didn't really plan to fast that long, circumstances led to it. I actually found it hard to eat after it. I normally eat a very small 500-600 calorie meal after a fast but I couldn't finish it after the long fast.
I think we underestimate how adaptable our body is and how intermittent fasting is actually the norm for most mammals.
My intake to maintain weight is about 2600kcal/day as a lightly-moderately active person. I normally do a breakfast of about 400-500 calories, and then 900-1000 for lunch and dinner. So if I weren't just waking up, 500-600 would be very small for me.
I tried single day (don't eat anything in a single waking period, not strict 24-hours—over 24 hours, in fact) fasting a few times a couple years back. I don't usually eat breakfast anyway (rarely feel hungry in the morning), but ~1hr after I usually eat lunch I'd feel fairly bad, and by 3pm or so I'd feel quite weak and mentally sluggish.
I still plan to try a 72 hour fast at some point, but I'm expecting it to be very unpleasant based on those experiences.
I have fasted for approximately a week on 4 different occasions and interestingly enough the 72 hours that you mentioned are indeed the hardest. For me personally it started getting easier at that specific 72 hour mark.
In regards to the multiple 24 hours fast I was wondering the same thing reading this article. Although I think it might not work because of the white blood cells regenerating.
No, hunger disappears around day 3, then returns with a vengeance shortly before death, which can be up to 3 months later. This second burst of hunger is actual starvation.
If you're going to do shorter fasts, you may as well just eat within the same 8-hour window each day. That approach can be even more beneficial than skipping meals for one day each week. After doing this for a while (and ensuring you don't have any nutrient deficiencies), a water fast shouldn't be that difficult. If it is, then you can transition into it with a juice fast.
I don't like doing shorter fasts because you only experience the worst part of them. The first 3-4 days are the worst and then everything clears (pre-existing conditions in skin/joints/intestine, mind fogginess, etc). Going out of the fast is a good time to experiment with food/situations and see what could be causing some of the issues you've been experiencing (if any).
I usually go for a 7-day water fast twice a year (and just completed one a few weeks ago). The results are obvious to me. YMMV.
Mandatory warning: I'm not a doctor and this is not medical advice. Talk to your doctor.
The "Body Positivity" movement that encourages people, especially young woman, to be obese or overweight, and tries to criminalize images of slender people in advertising may be the most unhealthy political movement there is.
Obesity kills 300,000 people in the U.S. each year, and with the exception of several hundred people suffering with psychological disorders who manage to starve themselves each year, being slender or even a bit "underweight" has no negative health effects and may have some positive ones.
Unless the act of donating blood releases some endorphins because you're helping someone else, then this is just bloodletting or phlebotomy, which is considered pseudoscience by the medical community.
Phlebotomy is still the standard treatment for iron overload. Humans usually regulate iron levels effectively by reducing absorption when iron levels are high, but there are genetic diseases where this regulation malfunctions, and very high dietary intake (usually from supplements) can overwhelm it.
Iron overload affects many different organs so mild cases might not have any obvious symptoms beyond a vague sense of bad health. There has been some research suggesting health benefits to phlebotomy even in patients without obvious iron overload, eg:
So is fasting :) Some researches that I've heard of suggest that after the initial significant drop in a total number of lymphocytes, about 2 weeks after the blood donation body will restore the previous immunological status. This is obviously done by generating new leukocytes, which is similar to the effect of fasting: when you start eating normal after the fasting period body will regenerate it's blood cells. The suggested gain here is not "a boost" of immune system, but getting rid of damaged, mutated cells.
So, it does not matter what physiological effects may be triggered by the lose of blood. Someone has already decided to label "bloodletting" as "unscientific", so no person that sees themselves as rational may investigate the phenomenon ever again?
In the words of the immortal Professor Quirrel (of HPMOR fame): "So the nasty Italian fascists believed that unity is stronger than division. Perhaps they also believed that the sky is blue, and advocated a policy of not dropping rocks on your head."
There is some evidence to indicate that high iron levels are a risk factor in heart disease. And thus donating blood could help lower that risk for some people. However I don't think any sort of "boost" effect has ever been demonstrated.
Thanks to blue1 who found the original paper (http://www.cell.com/cell-stem-cell/fulltext/S1934-5909%2814%...), I found this in the comments section: "In this study, the mice were allowed to drink water, but no food was allowed. In general, when limited food & water are allowed, the protocol is referred to as a "fasting-mimicking diet""
So no food, but water was allowed.
Just remember the context: the mice were subjected to chemotherapy schedules... so it's not like "hey take healthy mice, fast them and see them get healthy", but more like "hey take healthy mice, fast them, subject them to chemotherapy, and look... their immune system responds better than if we allowed them to eat pre-chemo" (apologies if I summarised this wrong)
That paper isn't the original- it's a followup. The original is a strict fast (water only) for 72 hours.
The FMD (Fasting Mimic Diet) is for 120 hours (5 days) and has more food allowed:
"The human FMD diet consists of a 5 day regimen: day 1 of the diet supplies 1,090 kcal (10% protein, 56% fat, 34% carbohydrate), days 2–5 are identical in formulation and provide 725 kcal (9% protein, 44% fat, 47% carbohydrate)."
Yeah, it's supposed to "Mimic" a fast. Supposedly it's easier to do than the 3-day water only fast, since you're getting some sustenance, but I haven't tried it.
About 3 years ago, I undertook a water fast that lasted about 17 days. It does take a lot of mental preparation. Nutrition wise, I ate only fruits for about a week before the fast. The first few days were very hard, but then I simply did not feel hunger at all. I intended to continue the fast for 30 days. But from about the 4th day onwards my mouth started having an awful odour and my tongue had a thick white coating that was the source. Into the third week, I simply couldn't bear that smell anymore and gave up. for getting back to regular food, I did the same thing and had only juices and fruits for about 3-4 days.
Now, I'm not an expert, but I read while preparing for the water fast that your body has nutrients it needs to survive for a few weeks. I didn't take any supplements during that time. Unfortunately, at that time i didn't have the means to measure and quantify what changed after the fast. I do remember being in a great mood for a few days after the fast. I don't know how much it benefited me, but it was an interesting exercise
That odour is probably the ketones coming into play when the body starts using fat for energy, instead of carbs or protein. And yes, it's a well known fact.
You still have to brush your teeth when fasting. Scrape all that plaque biofilm off your tongue. Plaque bacteria feed on all sorts of nutrients in your mouth and in your saliva, not just food residue.
It is not like I didn't brush my teeth. But the layer on the tongue was about 1mm thick, maybe more, and no amount of brushing it would remove it. It would only make my tongue hurt after a while, so i went back to regular brushing. Ketones may be the answer as the other reply explains, but one thing is for sure, having that foul smell in my tongue and nose at the same time 24 hours a day for 2 weeks is no party.
Of course the fast means little if you went back to your usual diet. The key is to have it rejuvenate/regenerate/heal your system, then to break it, but by transitioning to a better/cleaner diet (blended (Vitamix'd) vegetables, lean meats, nuts, and cold-pressed organic oils, for example).
Also, you can add in intermittent fasting (eating within the same 8-hour window each day) and mild caloric restriction (calculate your actual daily caloric requirement (more involved than it may seem), then eat 80% of that).
Then there are the supplements and nootropics. After a water fast is the perfect time to take on the habit of supplementing (in addition to continuing to consume mainly blended vegetables) with things like Acetyl L-Carnitine (and other free-form amino acids), CoQ10 (if you're over 30), Astaxanthin, Ashitaba, Vitamin D & K, Magnesium, (Opti)Zinc, etc. Also, there are nootropics like Cerebrolysin (one month every quarter), NSI-189 (also one month every quarter-- maybe after Cerebrolysin), and (N-Acetyl) Semax (Amidate) + N-Acetyl Selank (also one month every quarter-- or two months if you can't source NSI-189). There's also fasoracetam + coluracetam, Tianeptine Sulfate (mainly if you struggle with depression or anxiety), and many other things.
If you have regularly eaten well for some time before (i.e. no junk food but real food) you probably (?) have a sufficient store of nutrients to keep your system running for 72 hours.
The important question to me: Does drinking coffee (black without sugar naturally) blow the supposedly positive effects of the fast?
As a coffee addict and someone who fasts I keep looking into this. Strictly speaking a fast is supposed to allow a period of detox for the body so coffee isn't really a good idea.
That said it doesn't break your fast since it has a trace calorie content (provided no milk and sugar). After all some proponents of fasting recommend water with lemons or apple cider vinegar (for killing bio films/candida effects). I can't imagine coffee would be that different to lemon water calorie wise.
Pros and cons - if no coffee makes your fast unbearable have some (I always do), but ideally you're looking to consume only water.
It's not that hard. If you're going to do three days you might as well do a little longer. It takes around three days to switch to ketosis, after which hunger disappears. I did a week with just a sense of determination and knowledge of what to expect, and my relationship with food improved immensely.
The first article mentions someone going for 73 days without food, the second 66 days, and many others for shorter periods (but still on the order of multiple tens of days).
Some examples:
"In the 1940s, Mahatma Gandhi survived
21 days on sips of water during a display of civil disobedience."
"Dr Mike Stroud, senior lecturer of Medicine and Nutrition at Southampton University ... who accompanied veteran British adventurer Sir Ranulph Fiennes across the Antarctic, said it was possible to survive 60 days without food."
"In 1981, Republican prisoner Bobby Sands
died in Northern Ireland's Maze prison after a hunger strike lasting 66 days."
Of course many factors may influence how long you can go without food, such as the amount of physical activity you engage in. If you're running marathons every day, you're naturally not going to be able to go without food as long as someone who's immobile the whole time, etc.
Overeating is a psychological disorder. Few Americans would have any ill effects not eating for a few days -- especially the 66% of Americans who are obese or overweight.
Thanks for taking the time to drill into the study. It's just disappointing that the journalists apparently didn't have the time (or didn't consider it relevant).
Probably there is some minimum, because when you drink just regular water that has some calories as well. And not drinking for a day might be he worst dietary idea ever.
UPDATE: Water doesn't contain calories. Sorry for the misinformation.
My mouth (actually my hands) was faster then my brain. :-)
So where can I sign up for having my stomach replaced with a matter-antimater reactor or whatever it is this gadget that actually gives me access to this energy?
The most shocking thing (when I fasted for 5 days) occurred when I broke the fast. I broke it with 4 ounces of liquid (50% watermelon (straight from the fruit) + 50% water), only to have it come right back out 15-30 minutes later-- just as red as it was when it went it. It was mind boggling. I suppose I had gone my entire life thinking what comes out was always supposed to be brown, but when I looked in the toilet, all I saw was red. I couldn't believe it.
Also, I'm not dead. And lucky enough for me, I wasn't very toxic, so I easily went 5 days on nothing but water.
I didn't have a lot of toxins stored in my fat cells, as I was reasonably healthy prior to the fast. Some people have a lot of "bad stuff" which will enter their bloodstream when their body breaks down adipose for fuel. They tend to be better served by starting with a juice fast, then building up to a full on water fast. It's easy to tell if you're among them, as you'll have severe "detox" symptoms a day or two into the fast. The proper reaction to such an experience is to wind the fast down, or transition to a juice fast (all things you should read about and be aware of before you begin).
> Some people have a lot of "bad stuff" which will enter their bloodstream when their body breaks down adipose for fuel. [...] you'll have severe "detox" symptoms a day or two into the fast.
Your body doesn't work that way. "Detoxing diets" are pure superstition – which toxins are those supposed to be anyway?
From [1]: "The 'toxins' usually remain undefined, with little to no evidence of toxic accumulation in the patient." This fits your claims perfectly...
"The studies discussed here indicate that AT (Adipose tissue) plays a central role in POP (persistent
organic pollutants) toxicology. This
role is complex and may seem paradoxical.
Indeed, there is evidence that AT is protective
under conditions of acute or subacute exposure
to POPs. Storage in the lipid droplets has
a buffering effect and prevents the persistence
of high blood levels of these POPs and also
prevents high POP exposure of other more
sensitive lipophilic tissues such as the brain."
It is very annoying when people dismiss anything sounding vaguely like "alternative therapy" out of fear of quackery. I remember reading a comment on Reddit where someone denied there the body ever contains any toxins... apparently they were not familiar that the liver and kidneys have a purpose.
Nobody (well, nearly nobody) denies that the body contains toxic substances. The disputed claim is that various fasting methods will remove those toxins, for which there is no evidence (in typical "alternative therapy" fashion). Of course, this doesn't mean that fasting can't have other health benefits.
Want to help your body shed toxins? Drink some water, and your kidneys will get rid of them. The view that fasting will flush them out of your system appears to be wrong, though.
I didn't even go into this. When the body is in the fasted state, it begins burning up whatever it can find (in priority order-- oldest/crappiest tissues first) to fuel its processes. This includes adipose tissue. In the process of breaking down this fat, stored/trapped toxins may end up released into the bloodstream.
Is this something that can be spun around to the point that it can be claimed water fasting results in detox? I don't know, but I suppose there is all around healing and rejuvenation during this time.
It's also good to give the body a rest from constant digestion, so it can see to other things, and as cravings are reset during the fast, it's an easy transition (afterward) to whatever diet you actually want to follow.
There are many things that detox the body (liposomal vitamin C (liposomal mainly due to the high dosages needed), liposomal glutathione, ashitaba, chlorophyll, Centrophenoxine, magnesium oil spray or magnesium lotion, mercury chelators like spirulina (unless you have amalgam fillings), etc).
In our pharmaceutical-run health system, "no evidence" often equates to "since this thing is not patentable, no company has paid for expensive FDA-approved testing of it". That's not the same as no evidence.
Do you have any evidence that drinking more water alone without weight loss will remove the toxins from the adipose tissue that have accumulated over the years? I'm interested in learning how that works in more detail.
Yea. It was fairly uneventful. The first day or two I was hungry, but it was mild. Perhaps it was easy, as my eating habits left me naturally in intermittent fasting mode (I'd eat lunch at 1pm, dinner at 8pm, then nothing else).
Huh? I've been hungry before, so it wasn't too overwhelming. I just layed around, surfed the web, etc. It was fairly straightforward, familiar, and easy to ignore. As the days went on, the hunger went away, and my desire to drink water went down as well. I had to remind myself to continue consuming water (but then not too much, as that would be bad as well).
> You didn't consume anything but water for five consecutive days?
Unpleasant at first but not dangerous to healthy individuals. As someone pointed out: if we wasn't capable of doing that we would likely have been extinct long ago.
I fasted for a day when fighting with my parents. Worst thing to do since I am a Type-1 diabetic and ended up with Diabetic Ketoacidosis the next day and a near-death experience :-(
Well it's pretty much for any mammal except type-1 diabetics --- plus folks taking medication for blood sugar / insulin regulation without informing themselves thoroughly beforehand and monitoring carefully.
I was an idiot and I am not proud of that! I was thinking like "I need insulin when I eat food. So since I am not eating, I don't need insulin and everything will be fine" :-(
It is interesting that fasting and dietary restrictions are part of many popular religions. Perhaps some discovered these benefits and codified them as scriptures.
> When you starve, the system tries to save energy, and one of the things it can do to save energy is to recycle a lot of the immune cells that are not needed, especially those that may be damaged
That's remarkable news. I'm waiting to see the counter-arguments though. Fasting for 3 days seems like stretching the limits a bit. Also it seems to imply that these 3days periods are repeatable over the course of a few months.
Well, Islam gave the concept of 3 days fasting every month 1500 years ago and called "Ayyam Beez" and many Muslims have been practising it in every generation.
Scientific study proves (and sometimes doesn't) thing we take as common sense. Recently there was a study that dogs understood us more than was previously thought. Which wasn't a shocker but you have a camp of folks saying dogs understand nothing and another camp that continuously speak to their dogs. The scientific study just adds empirical proof.
It's not popular as Ramadan because it's not a must. Its called "ayaam albeed" which translates to "white days". It's called that because the moon is full on those three Days (13, 14 and 15th of each moon calendar month). The fast is from dawn to sunset and you are not allowed to drink water during that period.
re: "People are better eating on a regular basis.”
Well, that depends on what you're eating. One can't help but wonder if the reaction is not because of fasting per se, but because toxins are not be introduced into the body on a regular basis.
Sweating will eliminate large quantities of electrolytes quickly, but you will pass out before that happens. Any exercise beyond light stretching while on a water fast is dangerous.
It's interesting you brought this up. I used to skip breakfast all the time being a late riser. My gums were in a terrible shape with constant flare ups. I couldn't figure out why since I don't smoke. A few months ago I started eating breakfast regularly and I've noticed marked improvement. Obviously this is just my personal experience and YMMV.
It is hard for me to figure out what an improvement caused by starting to eat breakfast regularly has to do with the immune-stimulating effects of not eating for 3 days!
I was just responding to a comment asking about gum disease. Also I cringed somewhat reading comments thst advocate fasting that involves skipping breakfast. I don't claim to have any expertise.
Somewhat off topic, but a few friends now seem to have great success using Oil Pulling to combat gum disease so might be worth looking into (obviously keep brushing/flossing etc). I've started doing it on my drive to work which has the added bonus of stopping me smoking as much.
Likely deadly in case of AIDS. Initial stage of the fast lowers immunity a lot. Body reacts by lowering metabolism via parathyroid suppression among other things.
For ages various alt-medical practitioners have been mentioning fasting as a positive. But "the real science" has denied its value. Not, "Oh, we're not sure." But, "Oh. No way. That can't be." Will Med Science now come out and say, "Oh, we're sorry. Looks like y'all were right all along."? (Hit: No never.)
Instead they'll spin it as, "Look what we found..." And people wonder why many of us don't trust Big Science, Big Med, Big Pharma, etc. Ha. They're assholes. That's why.
Makes ya wonder, when occasional we hear about some "miracle" recovery if that person didn't accidentally fast from being too ill to eat, and that actually kicked started curing them. It wasn't the meds. It was the fasting. How many meds and med studies were skewed because this wasn't factored in?
