Fasting, a lost art

[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.

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.


　

　

[Mirage]

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

[Slothy]

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.

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.

[zx12y]

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.

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.

[Denmark]

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

[Yerushalmi]

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

[Mirage]

Can you write me about them instead?

[Yerushalmi]

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.

[Chemical]

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.

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

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.

[nik0tine]

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.

[fire_of_avalon]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

[Yerushalmi]

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.

[Pheesh]

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.

[Yerushalmi]

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.

[Denmark]

but it'll go fast, right?