Fasting, a lost art

I believe fasting, or going without food and/or water, is a lost art in the Western world. I believe you can improve your life by learning and going through the process. Start slowly by eating one meal a day for a time, then try a three day fast after eating regularly for a time. Here's why:

Bodily purification. This is a time of breaking down the weakest links of your character. It is literally survival of the fittest on the cellular level. Your body decides to rid itself of the weakest units in the organic system so that the healthiest aspects have a better environment to flourish, like weeding or trimming.

Learn better empathy. Learn the real-struggles of others in a controlled environment. Our beloved Final Fantasy characters sometimes go without nourishment for extended periods of time on their travels, and you too can experience the same elevated pride that they do. Think of how a large predator such as a lion eats. A keen predator knows it can bring about its own demise through its own destructive energy. The accomplishment of a successful catch is euphoric and necessitates extreme relaxation.

All hyperbole aside, it can be good for your health, like helping with insulin and cholesterol. Makes losing weight easy and fun.

"Makes losing weight easy and fun."? "Elevated pride"?

I beg to differ - starving oneself is far from fun (unless you're banking on a hunger high), and any weight you lose from fasting is sure to come back to you once you start to reintroduce solid foods or high-calorie liquids.

This is a food forum, not a lack-of-food forum. Unless you're making a political or religious statement, or you're talking about incredibly precise calorie-restriction then I'm not sure that this thread will be easily digested.

I like food, I enjoy eating it cause it tastes great and I feel good after a particularly nice meal. I also don't think we would get hunger pains and all that jazz if our bodies wanted us to not eat.

So yeah, basically if people want to do it then that's their business but it just seems a bit odd to me, and I would never associate it with 'easy and fun'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calliope

"Makes losing weight easy and fun."? "Elevated pride"?

I beg to differ - starving oneself is far from fun (unless you're banking on a hunger high), and any weight you lose from fasting is sure to come back to you once you start to reintroduce solid foods or high-calorie liquids.

This is a food forum, not a lack-of-food forum. Unless you're making a political or religious statement, or you're talking about incredibly precise calorie-restriction then I'm not sure that this thread will be easily digested.

---

It's not starvation unless you want it to be. It's kind of silly in my opinion to believe less than 24 hours without food would cause you any harm.

The pride and joy is experienced as a result of the mindset to make a specific commitment.

I don't think one should always be fasting or eating few calories, I stressed the need to have a surplus in my post. Sure the weight will come back, that is to grow healthier :-)

It may be presumptious to think you have some kind of experience in eating disorder, but if that were to be there case; I believe a basic education in fasting would lead one to developmentally reject such impulses and sublimate those desires in a healthy way.

Fasting is by definition going without food - you can fast for 24 hours, or any length of time you decide to (Being told to fast by a doctor before you have particular surgeries or examinations, for example) - you mentioned building up to a three day fast, which is starving yourself for three days. Beyond that, you really weren't specific about anything, including actual reasons why you think someone should fast (in terms of building character or testing oneself or whatever), proven benefits of fasting, and your own experience with the act.

I do not find your seemingly random statements to make any sense, much less argue the benefits of fasting for anyone. To imply that I may have an eating disorder because I said fasting did not strike me as being "easy and fun" as a shortcut to weight loss is lunacy; much like telling someone you think has an eating disorder they should seek "basic education in fasting" lies somewhere between pathological negligence and utter cruelty.

Anorexia nervosa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fasting for that long persistently is a massive and obvious glaring floodlight-lit siren-sounding flag-waving sign of an eating disorder. It's not a healthy thing to do, it shouldn't be easy and it shouldn't be fun. Whenever someone promotes doing such a thing, I find it all too easy to believe that person has an eating disorder. It's not art. When was it art? That's a fairly stupid thing to call it. xD There's no art to it at all. Just starving yourself, that's all it is.

I'd do the 40 hour famine on occasion as a youngster but I at least get to eat barley sugars for that. It never felt like art. It's done as a protest or a charity gaining venture sometimes and it's done as part of an eating disorder/poor diet on other occasions, and finally it's done against choice on other occasions. I've never seen it done for any reason outside of these things. I've never heard of it being called an art. I'm not really sure if I should be saddened someone thinks of it as a good thing (let alone art) or just laugh at the absurdity of it all. :p

Do Juice fasrs count>>?

fuick me. i'm dunrk

I read a good article in one of the New Scientist about fasting and Western diets. Mostly as a Western cultural it brought up an idea that we are over fed but by no means should starvation be considered an art it is really more a circumstance of life. People starve because they don't have a choice not because they want to be beautiful. But perhaps moderation is something needed these days, I don't really buy into a 3 square meals attitude either. Just eat when you are actually hungry not because you are bored or more importantly because you can.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I really feel like I'm on death's door if I don't eat anything every six hours. My entire body breaks down, my muscles get sore, and a migraine develops. As long as you are constantly active, give your body the nutrients it requires. Science has already proven that there are many more negative connotations to this entire deprivation of nutrients. Don't deprive yourself of what its like to be alive and well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chemical

I read a good article in one of the New Scientist about fasting and Western diets. Mostly as a Western cultural it brought up an idea that we are over fed but by no means should starvation be considered an art it is really more a circumstance of life. People starve because they don't have a choice not because they want to be beautiful. But perhaps moderation is something needed these days, I don't really buy into a 3 square meals attitude either. Just eat when you are actually hungry not because you are bored or more importantly because you can.

---

I was at Burger King once and a guy was waiting on his order for him and his grandkids, but he clearly didn't want to be there. Interestingly, he said that the three meals a day thing is something relatively new as when he was younger they only ever had two meals. Being someone who generally eats only two meals a day, I found this kind of interesting. I do love to eat and sometimes will certainly eat three meals a day and more than I need to, but I must concede that I find my lifestyle much more suited to just the two meals and perhaps a snack at some point.

I'd still say children are suited to three meals a day, though. I don't think I'd have survived on two meals as a kid. I ate bucketloads and never gained any weight.

I voluntarily fasted for 24 hours once because I wanted to see if I could do it. No food, no water, nothing.

It sucked but I survived and I don't recall there being any ill effects - not gonna do it ever again, though.

The human body has specific organs and systems in order to eliminate waste products already. Why would anyone need to fast when they have a liver, kidneys, and other organs?

I think the OP's theory about getting rid of the weakest link in your body is whacked out and doesn't make any sense.

But I don't think fasting itself is terrible. I know people who fast once in awhile for religious reasons, and it doesn't smurf them up or anything. I DON'T think that depriving yourself when you're hungry is in any way, a healthy way to lose weight. It is a bad bad bad way to lose weight, and any weight you lose will come right back. And maybe even more weight on top of that since people tend to binge when coming off those diets that only last a week or less. IE: fasting, juice cleanse, master cleanse, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jowy

I can't speak for anyone else, but I really feel like I'm on death's door if I don't eat anything every six hours. My entire body breaks down, my muscles get sore, and a migraine develops. As long as you are constantly active, give your body the nutrients it requires. Science has already proven that there are many more negative connotations to this entire deprivation of nutrients. Don't deprive yourself of what its like to be alive and well.

---

What does your diet look like? When I was eating a lot of carbs, if I went more than a few hours without eating, I would have symptoms of hypoglycemia. Shaking, sweating, lightheadedness, dizziness, intense cravings for sugar.

Ever since I went on a low carb, high fat diet, those symptoms just vanished.

I occasionally do what's called intermittent fasting. It was a by product of my diet and just kinda happened organically, and only after I had inadvertently done it a few times did I research it and found out that it was an actual thing that people on LCHF diets do. Basically, because a lot of my diet was comprised of foods with high satiety, I found thatduring most of the day, I simply wasn't hungry. So I would skip breakfast/lunch and just keep going until dinner time rolled around at which point I would eat cheeses and meats and butter and veggies. Then I just wouldn't really be all that hungry the next day and if I did start feeling a bit hungry, a few nuts or a slice of cheese would fill me right up as a snack.

And during these intermittent fasts from the time I woke up, until around 7PM, I was exercising by running about 2 miles. So I had the energy to do that and felt no negative effects from skipping breakfast and lunch.

That being said, obviously I wouldn't recommend doing that for anyone who ISN'T feeling healthy and satiated. And I would only do this about once every other day, although I didn't really have a schedule. I just ate when I was hungry and tried to abstain from eating or snacking when I wasn't hungry. The weird thing is that sometimes when I'm not hungry, I still want to eat, just because I enjoy the act of eating. Which I think is true for a lot of people. Eating can be a nice distraction, but it's probably unnecessary if you're not actually hungry.

I see no real point in fasting. I can go without food for a reasonable amount of time without feeling exhausted or anything, but I just like eating food so why shouldn't I?

I have no particular diet, and eat pretty much whatever I feel like, so I kinda think that whole thing with not having issues with skipping certain meals maybe just is something that some humans simply tackle better than others, regardless of diets.

I think the people who assume that fasting for 1-4 days qualifies you for an eating disorder are a bit ignorant. Yes, people with eating disorders "fast" but it stems from a different place. It's also characterized by repetition of "fasting" as opposed to a yearly/bi-annual fast or something. As Miriel has said, many people fast (whether it's one meal, or a few days) for religious purposes. It doesn't hurt them.

Agreed with Miriel again, though, when I think that doing it for weight loss/health is not beneficial. Because, as she said, you tend to over-eat and your body stores up what you consume more, as you've been "starving" yourself. Juice fasts might be okay? But your body is still keeping some nutrients, and those are generally used more as detox anyways, not for weight loss (or how they should be used).

So many criticisms, I will try to address each worthy objection.

First of all, your body stores glycogen (energy) for three days before running out completley. The weight lost from a short fast is mostly weight used to replenish glycogen during that time.

It is hard to qualify the psychological benefits, but it is rewarding and there is a high associated with breaking a good fast. I never said anyone had an eating disorder or that someone with an ED should learn how to fast, nice really valid point and i'm impressed by your thinking.. See how stigmatized everyone is to fasting? It makes it harder for people to get help; I think learning about fasting for an ED'd person would force them to analyze their habits. I basically believe ED can be avoided in certain cases, had the person learned to express themselves first through fasting.

A person wanting to fast is not indicative at all of an ED. That's like saying being a ghost hunter means you are schizophrenic. In fact, I think it shows a very healthy relationship with food, or at least embodies my own.

If you can't somewhat easily go a day without food, no offense, you aren't a well-adapted organism. We all have flaws, though. Just because something is new and hard doesn't mean its negative, learning something positive can often be difficult. You might have greater sucess with the proper mindset and planning leading into a fast. Regardless, if you much suffer that much beyond hunger pains, an evaluation of sorts might be in line.

Your body is always purifying itself, but I think fasting helps it along. Most organs in the body catch a break often, like the brain and lungs slowing down for sleep. The heart doesn't really get a rest and neither does our digestive system with our habits. IMO, when you eat too often, you don't give the digestive system a good environment to repair itself. Fasting means non-digestive organs get more blood flow, an adaptation occurs. It certainly helps with acne and other blemishes.

Why wouldn't fasting cause your body to catabolize the weakest links? The body is not going to catabolize the healthiest cells, the ones it just put an effort into creating. If a cell is not getting enough energy to live and eventually divide, it will eventually be catabolized by the body. When the fast is broken, those cells are replaced by new cells. This type of thing is happening 24/7 in your body.

I also forgot I am healthy and active in my OP. Losing beaten up and dirtied mass for new clean mass is fine, it is nice if the scale needle wobbles a little for me.

If all this is too subjective for you, I already stated in the OP that fasting has been associated with healthy cholesterol and good insulin sensivity.

Good thing I didn't start a thread about night vigils, probably too many insomniacs around here anyways.


　

　

How would it catabolize your weakest cells if you store glycogen for 3 days anyway? Why wouldn't it just use that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NorthernChaosGod

The human body has specific organs and systems in order to eliminate waste products already. Why would anyone need to fast when they have a liver, kidneys, and other organs?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miriel

I think the OP's theory about getting rid of the weakest link in your body is whacked out and doesn't make any sense.

---

Pretty much this. The idea of cleansing, or ridding the body of toxins and whatnot by doing anything other than not ingesting them is pretty much malarkey. And most of what the OP is saying about that stuff is not backed up by any research I've ever come across. And I feel safe in saying I've skimmed through more nutrition related research papers than the average person. Maybe I'm wrong, but when I've never heard of this stuff outside of health magazine article garbage and the underlying statements don't even make sense with what I know of the way the body functions, I have to question it.

As for fasting, there are definite and proven metabolic benefits to fasting for 14-16 hours or so. I know one woman who for a while could go to zero carbs and never reach the point where her body was in ketosis until she tried intermittent fasting which is a bit like hitting a big old metabolic reset button. But anything over 16-18 hours tops and those benefits disappear and you run into a bunch of other issues. There's nothing like starving yourself for more than a day to get the body to stop losing weight for example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mirage

How would it catabolize your weakest cells if you store glycogen for 3 days anyway? Why wouldn't it just use that?

---

Your body at first uses mostly glycogen in combination with lipids and proteins, before being forced to use only lipids and proteins to convert into glycogen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mirage

Pretty much this. The idea of cleansing, or ridding the body of toxins and whatnot by doing anything other than not ingesting them is pretty much malarkey. And most of what the OP is saying about that stuff is not backed up by any research I've ever come across. And I feel safe in saying I've skimmed through more nutrition related research papers than the average person. Maybe I'm wrong, but when I've never heard of this stuff outside of health magazine article garbage and the underlying statements don't even make sense with what I know of the way the body functions, I have to question it.

As for fasting, there are definite and proven metabolic benefits to fasting for 14-16 hours or so. I know one woman who for a while could go to zero carbs and never reach the point where her body was in ketosis until she tried intermittent fasting which is a bit like hitting a big old metabolic reset button. But anything over 16-18 hours tops and those benefits disappear and you run into a bunch of other issues. There's nothing like starving yourself for more than a day to get the body to stop losing weight for example.

---

I don't understand how it wouldn't help in cleansing processes. If you have mild acne or skin blemishes, I don't think they will survive a good fast. The whole environment inside your digestive system changes in a way that puts less stress on it. In the very least, your momentarily not injesting as many new toxins into your body.

There's a suggestion about metabolic damage. The best way to address that is just be aware that its possible and plan to avoid it. Its monkey business to think that an occasional fast will cause long-term irreversible damage! There is no way to get around the laws of thermodynamics; even a damaged metabolism will lose mass.

Scientific research into nutrition can be dubious at times. There is a huge marketplace for food, and every educational and research insitution has an agenda. It's very defeatist to believe what we think we know will never change. Simply put, there is only money to be lost if people eat less.

Seriously, don't be so afraid to try something new. It works great for me and my purposes. Even if you're a guru, you might not be privy to the latest trends. There is a recent surge of new information, try
http://www.leangains.com/ a blog from a recent author, and the wikipedia article on fasting has information confirming my OP.

i'm sorry, i can't take this thread seriously because I keep reading the title as "Farting, a lost art"

I'm Jewish. We have several fast days throughout the year. They're nothing to write home about.

Can you write me about them instead?

You just get hungry and thirsty, is all. They don't make you feel "cleaner", either physically or mentally. Or at least they don't for me. Maybe some other people find it spiritually rewarding and fulfilling, I don't know.

You will see fad articles talking about how good or cool starvation diets can be posted in media like newspapers or magazines but dont just go jump on a band wagon because one doctor some where says it might extend your life. Fad Diets especially are not medically proven, they are hypothesized. More importantly, these studies are usually uncontrolled, non-blinded, and often biased towards the a sponsor/researcher/doctors own agenda. And crap like health, dieting and beauty sell to the masses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zx12y

All hyperbole aside, it can be good for your health, like helping with insulin

---

Alternatively, it can be really bad for you too:
Starvation diet and very-low-calorie diets may induce insulin resistance and overt diabetes mellitus
Telogen Effluvium Secondary to Starvation Diet
DEATH DURING THERAPEUTIC STARVATION FOR OBESITY
METABOLIC BASIS OF STARVATION DIARRHOEA: IMPLICATIONS FOR TREATMENT
Production of peptic ulcers in rats and mice by diets deficient in protein
Hyperuricemia induced by high fat diets and starvation
Dietary Nucleotides Reverse Malnutrition and Starvation-Induced Immunosuppression
EFFECT OF ANDROGEN ON THE PROSTATE IN STARVATION

Quote:

---

Starvation diets with an energy intake below 200 kcal per day are no longer used, but very low-energy diets with an energy intake of between 200 and 800 kcal per day have been used, although there is little to support the use of energy levels below 800 kcal per day.

---

Dietary approaches to reducing body weight
The historical development, efficacy and safety of very-low-calorie diets.
*most starvation diets I noted on actual medical peer reviewed journals only use starvation diets in obese patients and even still very monitored by a medical/clinical team.

This thread isn't about a "starvation diet". It's about fasting.

I question whether there is any evidence that fasting has any lasting positive effects, but it's contrary to common sense to suggest that an occasional 3 day fast is going to have any lasting negative effects, either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zx12y

So many criticisms, I will try to address each worthy objection.

First of all, your body stores glycogen (energy) for three days before running out completley. The weight lost from a short fast is mostly weight used to replenish glycogen during that time.

---

This isn't true. At all. First of all, glycogen is stored differently for different parts of your body. For example, glycogen stored in muscle tissues can't be shared with other parts of the body. So if you sat perfectly still for three days while fasting you wouldn't deplete the glycogen present in your muscle tissue.

The liver, however, does share it's glycogen with other organs, mostly the brain, and when it is depleted and you aren't consuming glucose to burn... well, in rare you can end up with hypoglycemia which is way bad. Way way bad. How quickly you lose this glycogen is dependent on what you do while you're not eating. Also, glycogen isn't a bad thing. Just another form of energy reserve for our body when we find ourselves in situations that we can't eat.

Quote:

---

It is hard to qualify the psychological benefits, but it is rewarding and there is a high associated with breaking a good fast. I never said anyone had an eating disorder or that someone with an ED should learn how to fast, nice really valid point and i'm impressed by your thinking.. See how stigmatized everyone is to fasting? It makes it harder for people to get help; I think learning about fasting for an ED'd person would force them to analyze their habits. I basically believe ED can be avoided in certain cases, had the person learned to express themselves first through fasting.

---

I don't understand what you mean by this. You think that maybe a person with eating disorders should have tried fasting instead? If this is the case I don't think you understand well the relationship between food and control when it comes to eating disorders. An eating disorder isn't about not having a desire to eat.

Quote:

---

A person wanting to fast is not indicative at all of an ED. That's like saying being a ghost hunter means you are schizophrenic. In fact, I think it shows a very healthy relationship with food, or at least embodies my own.

---

What I don't understand is what evidence you have to support that occasional fasting for up to three days has any health benefits outside of a feeling of accomplishment.

Quote:

---

If you can't somewhat easily go a day without food, no offense, you aren't a well-adapted organism. We all have flaws, though. Just because something is new and hard doesn't mean its negative, learning something positive can often be difficult. You might have greater sucess with the proper mindset and planning leading into a fast. Regardless, if you much suffer that much beyond hunger pains, an evaluation of sorts might be in line.

---

Well adapted can mean a lot of things. In this instance I think you're saying "If you can't go a day without food you ain't tough." To which I would reply: "So what?" or "I don't really care what you think." I can go a day without eating and be grumpy and ill or I can continue to fuel my body when it requires fuel and be happy. I pick happy.

Quote:

---

Your body is always purifying itself, but I think fasting helps it along. Most organs in the body catch a break often, like the brain and lungs slowing down for sleep. The heart doesn't really get a rest and neither does our digestive system with our habits. IMO, when you eat too often, you don't give the digestive system a good environment to repair itself. Fasting means non-digestive organs get more blood flow, an adaptation occurs. It certainly helps with acne and other blemishes.

---

Evidence to support any of this, outside of your own anecdotal experience, would be nice. I mean yeah, when you don't eat your body produces less sebum which means your face is less oily which means less likely to trap dirt in your pores but that isn't because you're getting rid of toxins in your body. It's probably because Western people eat a whole bunch of sugar which can cause hyperinsulinemia which might be linked to acne. You could reduce the sugar in your diet without fasting and probably have the same effect.

Quote:

---

Why wouldn't fasting cause your body to catabolize the weakest links? The body is not going to catabolize the healthiest cells, the ones it just put an effort into creating. If a cell is not getting enough energy to live and eventually divide, it will eventually be catabolized by the body. When the fast is broken, those cells are replaced by new cells. This type of thing is happening 24/7 in your body.

---

Right, it's happening without fasting. Fasting doesn't speed up cellular respiration, it slows it down and creates a stress response in your other cells. It also lowers your sex hormones, body temperature, glucose and insulin levels and your blood pressure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zx12y

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mirage

How would it catabolize your weakest cells if you store glycogen for 3 days anyway? Why wouldn't it just use that?

---

Your body at first uses mostly glycogen in combination with lipids and proteins, before being forced to use only lipids and proteins to convert into glycogen.

---

No. Lipids aren't converted to glycogen. Glycogen is synthesized from glucose that originates either 1) from food consumption or 2) during the Cori process in which lactic acid from the muscles is transported to the liver, turned into glycogen, then returned to the muscles. Where it does nothing until the muscles need it.

Quote:

---

I don't understand how it wouldn't help in cleansing processes. If you have mild acne or skin blemishes, I don't think they will survive a good fast. The whole environment inside your digestive system changes in a way that puts less stress on it. In the very least, your momentarily not injesting as many new toxins into your body.

---

In what way. How does it change? How does not eating kill acne?

Quote:

---

Scientific research into nutrition can be dubious at times. There is a huge marketplace for food, and every educational and research insitution has an agenda. It's very defeatist to believe what we think we know will never change. Simply put, there is only money to be lost if people eat less.

---

Oh, lots and lots of money is gained all the time trying to convince people to eat less. It's a multi-billion dollar industry foisting shyster-y products on people to convince them they should eat less.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zx12y

I don't understand how it wouldn't help in cleansing processes. If you have mild acne or skin blemishes, I don't think they will survive a good fast.

---

I can tell you from personal experience that this isn't true. If it were, all religious Jews would have perfect skin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fire_of_avalon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zx12y

Your body is always purifying itself, but I think fasting helps it along. Most organs in the body catch a break often, like the brain and lungs slowing down for sleep. The heart doesn't really get a rest and neither does our digestive system with our habits. IMO, when you eat too often, you don't give the digestive system a good environment to repair itself. Fasting means non-digestive organs get more blood flow, an adaptation occurs. It certainly helps with acne and other blemishes.

---

Evidence to support any of this, outside of your own anecdotal experience, would be nice. I mean yeah, when you don't eat your body produces less sebum which means your face is less oily which means less likely to trap dirt in your pores but that isn't because you're getting rid of toxins in your body. It's probably because Western people eat a whole bunch of sugar which can cause hyperinsulinemia which might be linked to acne. You could reduce the sugar in your diet without fasting and probably have the same effect.

---

You can. I cut out most of the sugar I was eating, and upped my silica, lactoferrin and zinc intake. Cleared up basically 90% of my face, and I got to eat every day.

Today happens to be a fast day. I can promise you that not only am I not enjoying it, it's not going to do my health any favors.

but it'll go fast, right?

IF ONE MORE PERSON MAKES THAT CRACK I SWEAR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Denmark

i'm sorry, i can't take this thread seriously because I keep reading the title as "Farting, a lost art"

---

I read it as 'Fisting, a lost watch

But yea, The is insane and listening to a 'nutritionist'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fire_of_avalon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zx12y

So many criticisms, I will try to address each worthy objection.

First of all, your body stores glycogen (energy) for three days before running out completley. The weight lost from a short fast is mostly weight used to replenish glycogen during that time.

---

This isn't true. At all. First of all, glycogen is stored differently for different parts of your body. For example, glycogen stored in muscle tissues can't be shared with other parts of the body. So if you sat perfectly still for three days while fasting you wouldn't deplete the glycogen present in your muscle tissue.

The liver, however, does share it's glycogen with other organs, mostly the brain, and when it is depleted and you aren't consuming glucose to burn... well, in rare you can end up with hypoglycemia which is way bad. Way way bad. How quickly you lose this glycogen is dependent on what you do while you're not eating. Also, glycogen isn't a bad thing. Just another form of energy reserve for our body when we find ourselves in situations that we can't eat.

Quote:

---

It is hard to qualify the psychological benefits, but it is rewarding and there is a high associated with breaking a good fast. I never said anyone had an eating disorder or that someone with an ED should learn how to fast, nice really valid point and i'm impressed by your thinking.. See how stigmatized everyone is to fasting? It makes it harder for people to get help; I think learning about fasting for an ED'd person would force them to analyze their habits. I basically believe ED can be avoided in certain cases, had the person learned to express themselves first through fasting.

---

I don't understand what you mean by this. You think that maybe a person with eating disorders should have tried fasting instead? If this is the case I don't think you understand well the relationship between food and control when it comes to eating disorders. An eating disorder isn't about not having a desire to eat.

Quote:

---

A person wanting to fast is not indicative at all of an ED. That's like saying being a ghost hunter means you are schizophrenic. In fact, I think it shows a very healthy relationship with food, or at least embodies my own.

---

What I don't understand is what evidence you have to support that occasional fasting for up to three days has any health benefits outside of a feeling of accomplishment.

Quote:

---

If you can't somewhat easily go a day without food, no offense, you aren't a well-adapted organism. We all have flaws, though. Just because something is new and hard doesn't mean its negative, learning something positive can often be difficult. You might have greater sucess with the proper mindset and planning leading into a fast. Regardless, if you much suffer that much beyond hunger pains, an evaluation of sorts might be in line.

---

Well adapted can mean a lot of things. In this instance I think you're saying "If you can't go a day without food you ain't tough." To which I would reply: "So what?" or "I don't really care what you think." I can go a day without eating and be grumpy and ill or I can continue to fuel my body when it requires fuel and be happy. I pick happy.

Quote:

---

Your body is always purifying itself, but I think fasting helps it along. Most organs in the body catch a break often, like the brain and lungs slowing down for sleep. The heart doesn't really get a rest and neither does our digestive system with our habits. IMO, when you eat too often, you don't give the digestive system a good environment to repair itself. Fasting means non-digestive organs get more blood flow, an adaptation occurs. It certainly helps with acne and other blemishes.

---

Evidence to support any of this, outside of your own anecdotal experience, would be nice. I mean yeah, when you don't eat your body produces less sebum which means your face is less oily which means less likely to trap dirt in your pores but that isn't because you're getting rid of toxins in your body. It's probably because Western people eat a whole bunch of sugar which can cause hyperinsulinemia which might be linked to acne. You could reduce the sugar in your diet without fasting and probably have the same effect.

Quote:

---

Why wouldn't fasting cause your body to catabolize the weakest links? The body is not going to catabolize the healthiest cells, the ones it just put an effort into creating. If a cell is not getting enough energy to live and eventually divide, it will eventually be catabolized by the body. When the fast is broken, those cells are replaced by new cells. This type of thing is happening 24/7 in your body.

---

Right, it's happening without fasting. Fasting doesn't speed up cellular respiration, it slows it down and creates a stress response in your other cells. It also lowers your sex hormones, body temperature, glucose and insulin levels and your blood pressure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zx12y

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mirage

How would it catabolize your weakest cells if you store glycogen for 3 days anyway? Why wouldn't it just use that?

---

Your body at first uses mostly glycogen in combination with lipids and proteins, before being forced to use only lipids and proteins to convert into glycogen.

---

No. Lipids aren't converted to glycogen. Glycogen is synthesized from glucose that originates either 1) from food consumption or 2) during the Cori process in which lactic acid from the muscles is transported to the liver, turned into glycogen, then returned to the muscles. Where it does nothing until the muscles need it.

Quote:

---

I don't understand how it wouldn't help in cleansing processes. If you have mild acne or skin blemishes, I don't think they will survive a good fast. The whole environment inside your digestive system changes in a way that puts less stress on it. In the very least, your momentarily not injesting as many new toxins into your body.

---

In what way. How does it change? How does not eating kill acne?

Quote:

---

Scientific research into nutrition can be dubious at times. There is a huge marketplace for food, and every educational and research insitution has an agenda. It's very defeatist to believe what we think we know will never change. Simply put, there is only money to be lost if people eat less.

---

Oh, lots and lots of money is gained all the time trying to convince people to eat less. It's a multi-billion dollar industry foisting shyster-y products on people to convince them they should eat less.

---

I feel we are being pedantic and missing my intended message, but I will continue to defend my position.

I concede on not understanding the dynamics behind ED, here is my take. ED is not about food itself, but a person's body shape. When a person wants to take extreme measures to lose weight, they might decide to try a "starvation" diet, or extended fast. Societie's collective ignorance to the act of fasting forces the individual to be secretive about their endeveaors or be ostracized. Awareness into fasting means a possible way for an individual to sublimate feelings and cope.

By well adapted, I mean in a situtation that you reasonably should want to be in. Have you ever imagined a life without the modern convience you understand? I would never want to be in a position where I lose signifigant mental clarity and physical capacity in a crisis compared to a small lifestyle investment.

The health benefits being argued are not purely anecdotal; they are inductive. I'm not willing to empirically source anything, sorry. You can Google studies indicating multiple stances. The environment inside the organs of the digestive system changes due to decreased demand. This creates potential for an organism to adapt, as adaptation is a product of the environment.

Allow me to correct some of your ignorance regarding the dieting market. Firstly, most diets are in some form a product, whereas selling a fasting diet would be a service. There are a few exeptions, like selling of BCAAs for fasting, but I argue that trying to sell a product to be injested in a service of non-injesting creates a psychological paradox that is hard to sell to a consumer making it economically unviable. A service is much harder to sell than a comparable product, so a fasting diet is much less competitive. Secondly, people would much prefer a quick and easy solution.

I used to use... Weightwatchers.

Calorie counting is largely pointless.

Health comes first.

Thusly, fasting is largely a pointless and personal excercise in tedium.

Brain food is quite different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zx12y

I feel we are being pedantic and missing my intended message, but I will continue to defend my position.

I concede on not understanding the dynamics behind ED, here is my take. ED is not about food itself, but a person's body shape. When a person wants to take extreme measures to lose weight, they might decide to try a "starvation" diet, or extended fast. Societie's collective ignorance to the act of fasting forces the individual to be secretive about their endeveaors or be ostracized. Awareness into fasting means a possible way for an individual to sublimate feelings and cope.

By well adapted, I mean in a situtation that you reasonably should want to be in. Have you ever imagined a life without the modern convience you understand? I would never want to be in a position where I lose signifigant mental clarity and physical capacity in a crisis compared to a small lifestyle investment.

The health benefits being argued are not purely anecdotal; they are inductive. I'm not willing to empirically source anything, sorry. You can Google studies indicating multiple stances. The environment inside the organs of the digestive system changes due to decreased demand. This creates potential for an organism to adapt, as adaptation is a product of the environment.

Allow me to correct some of your ignorance regarding the dieting market. Firstly, most diets are in some form a product, whereas selling a fasting diet would be a service. There are a few exeptions, like selling of BCAAs for fasting, but I argue that trying to sell a product to be injested in a service of non-injesting creates a psychological paradox that is hard to sell to a consumer making it economically unviable. A service is much harder to sell than a comparable product, so a fasting diet is much less competitive. Secondly, people would much prefer a quick and easy solution.

---

Well, eating disorders are about body image, self-worth and self control, yeah.

I live as is without a lot of modern conveniences. How will fasting help me with that?

As for your final paragraph: Amazon.com: fasting

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fire_of_avalon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zx12y

I feel we are being pedantic and missing my intended message, but I will continue to defend my position.

I concede on not understanding the dynamics behind ED, here is my take. ED is not about food itself, but a person's body shape. When a person wants to take extreme measures to lose weight, they might decide to try a "starvation" diet, or extended fast. Societie's collective ignorance to the act of fasting forces the individual to be secretive about their endeveaors or be ostracized. Awareness into fasting means a possible way for an individual to sublimate feelings and cope.

By well adapted, I mean in a situtation that you reasonably should want to be in. Have you ever imagined a life without the modern convience you understand? I would never want to be in a position where I lose signifigant mental clarity and physical capacity in a crisis compared to a small lifestyle investment.

The health benefits being argued are not purely anecdotal; they are inductive. I'm not willing to empirically source anything, sorry. You can Google studies indicating multiple stances. The environment inside the organs of the digestive system changes due to decreased demand. This creates potential for an organism to adapt, as adaptation is a product of the environment.

Allow me to correct some of your ignorance regarding the dieting market. Firstly, most diets are in some form a product, whereas selling a fasting diet would be a service. There are a few exeptions, like selling of BCAAs for fasting, but I argue that trying to sell a product to be injested in a service of non-injesting creates a psychological paradox that is hard to sell to a consumer making it economically unviable. A service is much harder to sell than a comparable product, so a fasting diet is much less competitive. Secondly, people would much prefer a quick and easy solution.

---

Well, eating disorders are about body image, self-worth and self control, yeah.

I live as is without a lot of modern conveniences. How will fasting help me with that?

As for your final paragraph: Amazon.com: fasting

---

Much of what I say is speculation, but society is too far from ideal to judge whether or not a universal understanding of fasting would increase the overall mental health of society. It would if it were shown to benefit the individual's mind.

It is better to prepare for something in a controlled environment so that you have experience for the future. I was refering to the convience of having easy access to food at any given time. Even if your life isn't threatened, it can make a day without time for eating easier and natural.

Those are a bunch of books with studies done by independent authors. The concept isn't commercialized to a point of mainstream affluence.

Coincidentally, today's Dave Barry Column Rerun has to do with this: The class-conscious diet - Dave Barry - MiamiHerald.com

I have an odd eating pattern in general. Some days I'll eat more than normal, but then I'll barely eat, if at all, the next day. Sometimes I'll go a week without eating much and then I realize I'm doing it and wind up overcompensating once I've realized what I've been doing it. And then I feel like ish for doing so and the cycle starts all over again.

I'm sure this is why I'm tired all the time - or at least a large contributor to the problem.