Fasting

[g4macdad]

I saw someplace where fasting is widely used as a medical treatment. This subject seems pretty fascinating.

Does anyone here have any knowledge on the subject to share?

[Mojo]

It's probably better than the all-crow diet.

[g4macdad]

It's probably better than the all-crow diet.

Moderator please! Is this level of trolling really acceptable?

Troll

Moderator
Moderator
Moderator
Moderator
Moderator
Moderator
Moderator

[Dogdoctor]

In animals when they vomit repeatedly or have severe diarrhea we fast them temporarily till their upset tummies resolve.

[g4macdad]

In animals when they vomit repeatedly or have severe diarrhea we fast them temporarily till their upset tummies resolve.

Have you ever fasted?

[Jackalgirl]

I saw someplace where fasting is widely used as a medical treatment. This subject seems pretty fascinating.

Does anyone here have any knowledge on the subject to share?

Got any links? To what extent are we talking about? Who is using fasting as what kind of a medical treatment for what kind(s) of condition(s)? (Links would answer all those questions.)

As for myself, I've only had to fast when preparing for a medical test of some kind; for example, I recently had to have a glucose test (to check for gestational diabetes). I fasted for about eight hours (if I recall correctly) then had to drink an extremely sweet drink, then about an hour after that the medical techs drew my blood to check my blood-sugar levels. The point of the fasting in that case was to ensure that erroneous readings didn't result.

I also understand that persons scheduled for surgery are supposed to fast so that the stomach is empty (I can't say for sure; I'm not a doctor, so hopefully one of our resident docs will show up and say something). I do know that at the local hospital, if you're in labor in the hospital, they don't want you to eat anything. Fluids, including light-colored fluids like lemon Gatorade, etc., are fine. And that's because they prefer your stomach to be empty if you end up needing a C-Section.

Again, what kind of fasting are you reading about, and what's it in relation to?

[g4macdad]

Got any links? To what extent are we talking about? Who is using fasting as what kind of a medical treatment for what kind(s) of condition(s)? (Links would answer all those questions.)

As for myself, I've only had to fast when preparing for a medical test of some kind; for example, I recently had to have a glucose test (to check for gestational diabetes). I fasted for about eight hours (if I recall correctly) then had to drink an extremely sweet drink, then about an hour after that the medical techs drew my blood to check my blood-sugar levels. The point of the fasting in that case was to ensure that erroneous readings didn't result.

I also understand that persons scheduled for surgery are supposed to fast so that the stomach is empty (I can't say for sure; I'm not a doctor, so hopefully one of our resident docs will show up and say something). I do know that at the local hospital, if you're in labor in the hospital, they don't want you to eat anything. Fluids, including light-colored fluids like lemon Gatorade, etc., are fine. And that's because they prefer your stomach to be empty if you end up needing a C-Section.

Again, what kind of fasting are you reading about, and what's it in relation to?

Actually the real reason I was asking is, I forgot the URL of the place I read it.

I read some interesting and informative posts here about vegan diets, so I thought this might be a good place to ask.:D

[Dogdoctor]

Have you ever fasted?

I have gone a couple of days without food on purpose a couple times. I used to live on a commune and they told me I would feel good after fasting. I think there is a sort of high that goes along with hypoglycemia or some other metabolic abnormality that occurs with fasting. It was not impressive to me but after 2 days there was little urge to eat and I felt fine. Once I ate again I did not feel better.

[g4macdad]

I have gone a couple of days without food on purpose a couple times. I used to live on a commune and they told me I would feel good after fasting. I think there is a sort of high that goes along with hypoglycemia or some other metabolic abnormality that occurs with fasting. It was not impressive to me but after 2 days there was little urge to eat and I felt fine. Once I ate again I did not feel better.

What about ketosis? I think this is the key factor of the medical benifits, right?

[TTLer]

@ g4md: Please do us the courtesy of doing your own research before posting here.

For example, Wikipedia has an extensive article on fasting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasting

Check it out, educate yourself. If, after that, you have some salient point or issue that you feel merits examination by fellow skeptics, post your idea here.

[Dogdoctor]

What about ketosis? I think this is the key factor of the medical benifits, right?

I am not aware of medical benefits to fasting other than it's a good idea if you're puking or squirting diarrhea.

[g4macdad]

@ g4md: Please do us the courtesy of doing your own research before posting here.

For example, Wikipedia has an extensive article on fasting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasting

Check it out, educate yourself. If, after that, you have some salient point or issue that you feel merits examination by fellow skeptics, post your idea here.

Why would I do my own research and come back and respond to myself? I was asking for members to share their knowledge. What is your problem again? For a new guy you sure are cocky.

[TTLer]

Why would I do my own research...

So you can intelligently discuss the issue you're posting about.

...and come back and respond to myself?

There's 13,000 members in this forum who will respond, you don't have to do it yourself.

For a new guy you sure are cocky.

Factor this formula: forum member(# of posts <> value of contribution)

[g4macdad]

[QUOTE=g4macdad;2787727]Why would I do my own research...[?QUOTE]

So you can intelligently discuss the issue you're posting about.



There's 13,000 members in this forum who will respond, you don't have to do it yourself.



Factor this formula: forum member(# of posts <> value of contribution)

What did your two posts in this thread contribute?

[PixyMisa]

What did your two posts in this thread contribute?
They contributed plenty:

Provided a link to information on the very subject you raised.
Explained why it is valuable to do your own research.
Addressed two logical fallacies in your post.

What, exactly, do you want? Evidently not answers.

[Zep]

I've been fast quite a few times, and I'm sure I will be again.

[TTLer]

What did your two posts in this thread contribute?


To encourage you and future posters to do proper research before they start a new thread here for skeptical discussion.

[Jackalgirl]

I imagine, also, that TTLer is trying to help you avoid the Tai Chi method, in which one puts up a post with extremely minimal information and says "Interesting."

It might help if you'd post a bit more -- such as, for example, links to what you've been reading that interested you so, WHY it interested you so, and any relationship to skepticism you think it might have.

I ask again: what type of fasting are we talking about here? Fasting done by whom as a medical treatment for what? Are you talking about the Atkins diet, or something like that?

[Taffer]

Moderator please! Is this level of trolling really acceptable?

Troll

Moderator
Moderator
Moderator
Moderator
Moderator
Moderator
Moderator

:rolleyes:


What did your two posts in this thread contribute?

Seemed to contribute more then your posts...

[ChristineR]

Ketosis is not a benefit. Ketosis keeps you going while you're too sick to go out and hunt and gather. Some people enjoy the way it feels, and you can even have euphoria and hallucinations. The ability to go without food for a period of time and still feel good is itself a benefit. But just because it feels good doesn't mean that it's a valid medical treatment.

Like DogDoctor says, I too am unaware of any medical benefits of fasting per se.

[g4macdad]

Fasting can be used for nearly every chronic condition, including allergies, anxiety, arthritis, asthma, depression, diabetes, headaches, heart disease, high cholesterol, low blood sugar, digestive disorders, mental illness, and obesity. Fasting is an effective and safe weight loss method. It is frequently prescribed as a detoxification treatment for those with conditions that may be influenced by environmental factors, such as cancer and multiple chemical sensitivity. Fasting has been used successfully to help treat people who have been exposed to high levels of toxic materials due to accident or occupation. Fasting is thought to be beneficial as a preventative measure to increase overall health, vitality, and resistance to disease. Fasting is also used as a method of mental and spiritual rejuvenation.

Ok I found a good link.

http://www.healthline.com/galecontent/fasting-1

Anyone else here interested in this subject?

[Terry]

Moderator please! Is this level of trolling really acceptable?

Troll

Moderator
Moderator
Moderator
Moderator
Moderator
Moderator
Moderator

If you think a post violates the user agreement in some way, the correct thing to do is to use the "Report Post" button to report it, not to do this.

[g4macdad]

If you think a post violates the user agreement in some way, the correct thing to do is to use the "Report Post" button to report it, not to do this.

Thanks for the advice. I may consider it.:cool:

[Terry]

Thanks for the advice. I may consider it.:cool:

That would be sensible. You should bear in mind that moderators neither Kibo-ize the forum for the word "moderator", nor read every post. Therefore the only sure way to have a moderator examine something is to report it.

[JonWhite]

About 10 years ago I fasted in a bid to give up smoking. I'd kind of figured that patches, gum, etc hadn't helped so I'd try something radical. Looking back it seems a kind of odd decision to come to, but anyway...

For four days and nights I locked myself away indoors without any food, only drinking water with a little lemon juice added - I'd read somewhere that lemon juice helped the body detox. I remember that after the first day the hunger subsided but for the second and third day I had a rotten headache and my mouth tasted like the Pushkar camel fair. On the fourth day I felt pretty together again.

Nevertheless, the whole thing was a serious struggle. On the fifth day I was so pleased to have endured and just happy to finally eat once again that cigarettes weren't important or an issue somehow.

For some reason, after this I suffered almost none of the mental withdrawl cravings that had plagued earlier non-smoking attempts.

I have not smoked since.

:)

[krazyKemist]

What about ketosis? I think this is the key factor of the medical benifits, right?

I think you mean 'ketogenesis' rather than 'ketosis'. Ketosis means that you are burning ketones (produced previously in burning glycogen) for energy. This happens when you are very close to death by starvation (30 to 40 days after stopping eating).

The order in which the body burns things is: sugars -> glycogen/fats -> protein -> ketones.

A high concentration of ketones in the body is known to be somewhat anti-convulsing. Ketogenic diets (diets which contain a strictly limited amount of sugar and a high amount of fat) are sometimes used in the treatment of some forms of epilepsy (mainly those refractory to standard medication):

link (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17641989&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum)

Mechanism of action remains controversial though.

the Kemist

[g4macdad]

I think you mean 'ketogenesis' rather than 'ketosis'. Ketosis means that you are burning ketones (produced previously in burning glycogen) for energy. This happens when you are very close to death by starvation (30 to 40 days after stopping eating).

The order in which the body burns things is: sugars -> glycogen/fats -> protein -> ketones.

A high concentration of ketones in the body is known to be somewhat anti-convulsing. Ketogenic diets (diets which contain a strictly limited amount of sugar and a high amount of fat) are sometimes used in the treatment of some forms of epilepsy (mainly those refractory to standard medication):

link (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17641989&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum)

Mechanism of action remains controversial though.

the Kemist

You may be correct that I was using the wrong terminology, but I was more interested in all out fasting and not restrictive diets.

Let me post this link again:

http://www.healthline.com/galecontent/fasting-1

To fuel the brain, the body would need to burn over a pound of muscle a day, but the body has developed another way to create energy that saves important muscle mass. This protein-sparing process is called ketosis, which occurs during the third day of a fast for men and the second day for women. In this highly efficient state, the liver begins converting stored fat and other nonessential tissues into ketones, which can be used by the brain, muscles, and heart as energy.

Okay this is the quote about ketosis I was referring to.

I have noticed a lot of conflicting information on the subject, but I will keep searching.

[Dogdoctor]

Fasting can be used for nearly every chronic condition, including allergies, anxiety, arthritis, asthma, depression, diabetes, headaches, heart disease, high cholesterol, low blood sugar, digestive disorders, mental illness, and obesity.
The fact that fasting has been used is not significant in determining if it is helpful.


Fasting is an effective and safe weight loss method.

I would be interested in seeing some scientific data to back up this statement if there is any.


It is frequently prescribed as a detoxification treatment for those with conditions that may be influenced by environmental factors, such as cancer and multiple chemical sensitivity.

Hmmm frequently prescribed by who? I suspect the answer to that question is "quacks".


Fasting has been used successfully to help treat people who have been exposed to high levels of toxic materials due to accident or occupation.
I would like to see scientific information showing this to be true


Fasting is thought to be beneficial as a preventative measure to increase overall health, vitality, and resistance to disease. Fasting is also used as a method of mental and spiritual rejuvenation.
Ok so someone thinks that so what?

[ChristineR]

There are many unscientific sites and books that recommend fasting, but there isn't much in the way of scientific support for it.

Ketosis is a medical term for the state of having ketone bodies in your blood. Ketones are produced when the body burns fat, but they are normally quickly turned into something else.

Ketogenic just means something (a diet) that is likely to produce ketosis.

The rapid burning of fat doesn't start until about three days into starvation, when all the glucose in the liver and muscles is exhausted. At this point people generally stop being hungry and can even develop a sense of euphoria. This is an evolved response to the presence of ketones, as it indicates that you aren't likely to be getting much food for a while.

Ketosis is not healthy, despite what the low-carb folks will tell you. It means muscle loss, digestive and kidney problems, general weakness, poor judgment and bad breath. This doesn't keep people from inducing it deliberately.

The genius of Atkins is that you can eat all the protein and fat you want and still go into ketosis, as these are turned into fat and then ketones so you can be glucose-starved while overeating.

Although all this does cause rapid weight loss and (often) euphoria, the weight loss is usually temporary and there are serious health risks with ketosis. There are benefits such as lowered blood pressure and lower blood cholesterol associated with rapid weight loss, but these are not from fasting per se.

You will not detoxify yourself by starving. That's not how toxins are eliminated from the body. So far as I know, not one study supports claims for fasting improving the immune system.

Allergies and asthma can be helped by eliminating trigger foods. There is no benefit to fasting, so long as the trigger foods are eliminated.

The psychological effects of ketosis are harder to quantify. Sure euphoria is a treatment for depression, but lots of other things cause euphoria. You can't keep up either a true fast or a high-calorie, low-carb, ketogenic diet for very long, and once you quit you have to deal with all the stupid things you did while in brain fog.

[g4macdad]

There are many unscientific sites and books that recommend fasting, but there isn't much in the way of scientific support for it.

Ketosis is a medical term for the state of having ketone bodies in your blood. Ketones are produced when the body burns fat, but they are normally quickly turned into something else.

Ketogenic just means something (a diet) that is likely to produce ketosis.

The rapid burning of fat doesn't start until about three days into starvation, when all the glucose in the liver and muscles is exhausted. At this point people generally stop being hungry and can even develop a sense of euphoria. This is an evolved response to the presence of ketones, as it indicates that you aren't likely to be getting much food for a while.

Ketosis is not healthy, despite what the low-carb folks will tell you. It means muscle loss, digestive and kidney problems, general weakness, poor judgment and bad breath. This doesn't keep people from inducing it deliberately.

The genius of Atkins is that you can eat all the protein and fat you want and still go into ketosis, as these are turned into fat and then ketones so you can be glucose-starved while overeating.

Although all this does cause rapid weight loss and (often) euphoria, the weight loss is usually temporary and there are serious health risks with ketosis. There are benefits such as lowered blood pressure and lower blood cholesterol associated with rapid weight loss, but these are not from fasting per se.

You will not detoxify yourself by starving. That's not how toxins are eliminated from the body. So far as I know, not one study supports claims for fasting improving the immune system.

Allergies and asthma can be helped by eliminating trigger foods. There is no benefit to fasting, so long as the trigger foods are eliminated.

The psychological effects of ketosis are harder to quantify. Sure euphoria is a treatment for depression, but lots of other things cause euphoria. You can't keep up either a true fast or a high-calorie, low-carb, ketogenic diet for very long, and once you quit you have to deal with all the stupid things you did while in brain fog.

Could you please point us to the sources of all this information? As i did.

Could you also respectfully give us your reasons for assuming these sources are correct?

[ChristineR]

Could you please point us to the sources of all this information? As i did.

Could you also respectfully give us your reasons for assuming these sources are correct?

Well, the Wikipedia article on ketosis is a respectable place to start, but really most of it comes from books, of the kind which cite their sources, which are typically scientific studies.

For allergies and asthma and food in general see http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/
I doubt if anyone has done a study where they made people with food allergies fast and compared them to people who were just on elimination diets.

For detoxification, or the lack thereof, see Quackwatch. Since no one has come up with any evidence that fasting does remove toxins, there isn't much to cite.

For the general benefits of rapid weight loss on blood pressure, cholesterol, see http://win.niddk.nih.gov/publications/low_calorie.htm Again, I doubt if anyone has compared fasting to low calorie, as it is clear that the benefits are associated with low calorie and fasting is by definition low calorie.

For more details, consider the books of Dean Ornish, a good physiology text, the books of Covert Bailey, and the books of Kenneth Cooper.

I tend to trust books written by professionals with credentials, who cite studies written in peer-reviewed journals to support their claims. I do not trust websites that use words like "is thought to," makes claims that I know to be false, such as the claim that you will not loss muscle mass in ketosis. And for that, here's one more link. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=16403234&dopt=Abstract&holding=f1000%2Cf1000m%2Cisrctn)

[g4macdad]

Well, the Wikipedia article on ketosis is a respectable place to start, but really most of it comes from books, of the kind which cite their sources, which are typically scientific studies.

For allergies and asthma and food in general see http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/
I doubt if anyone has done a study where they made people with food allergies fast and compared them to people who were just on elimination diets.

For detoxification, or the lack thereof, see Quackwatch. Since no one has come up with any evidence that fasting does remove toxins, there isn't much to cite.

For the general benefits of rapid weight loss on blood pressure, cholesterol, see http://win.niddk.nih.gov/publications/low_calorie.htm Again, I doubt if anyone has compared fasting to low calorie, as it is clear that the benefits are associated with low calorie and fasting is by definition low calorie.

For more details, consider the books of Dean Ornish, a good physiology text, the books of Covert Bailey, and the books of Kenneth Cooper.

I tend to trust books written by professionals with credentials, who cite studies written in peer-reviewed journals to support their claims. I do not trust websites that use words like "is thought to," makes claims that I know to be false, such as the claim that you will not loss muscle mass in ketosis. And for that, here's one more link. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=16403234&dopt=Abstract&holding=f1000%2Cf1000m%2Cisrctn)

I found a study done on fasting right here.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=297130

Another

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=332976

I definately would not trust a site called" Quackwatch". Sounds like the Rush Limbaugh of medicine.

[nails3jesus0]

I saw someplace where fasting is widely used as a medical treatment. This subject seems pretty fascinating.

Does anyone here have any knowledge on the subject to share?

theres a lot of 'cleansing fast' crap floating around the weight loss industry, saying that fasting will rid your body of toxins. its bs. fasting is not good for anyone. not eating anything can seriously screw up your electrolytes and cause heart problems, and the body lowers the base metabolic rate to conserve the remaining body fat so when you DO start eating again you just gain it all back. And you feel absolutely terrible while you cant eat. from what i know ketones are not good for the body either.

studies showing a severely restricted calorie diet could prevent tumors and other diseases has lead to a different sort of diet, called 'cron' (calorie restriction optimum nutrition), which is like eating just barely enough food not to starve to death. i do not know how effective it is because all the tumor studies were done on animals.

[ChristineR]

I found a study done on fasting right here.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=297130

There are many studies on fasting and ketosis. What I'm not aware of is a study that compares the effects of fasting and very low calorie diets on blood pressure and cholesterol. I'm not even aware of a study that compares the effects on blood pressure and cholesterol of low calorie ketogenic diets to low calorie non-ketogenic diets. There might very well be some, I just don't know of one.

In general the answer is that low-calorie is low-calorie. Ketosis makes a small difference in some effects, but fasting doesn't seem to have any special properties than low calorie diets don't have.

[g4macdad]

theres a lot of 'cleansing fast' crap floating around the weight loss industry, saying that fasting will rid your body of toxins. its bs. fasting is not good for anyone. not eating anything can seriously screw up your electrolytes and cause heart problems, and the body lowers the base metabolic rate to conserve the remaining body fat so when you DO start eating again you just gain it all back. And you feel absolutely terrible while you cant eat. from what i know ketones are not good for the body either.

studies showing a severely restricted calorie diet could prevent tumors and other diseases has lead to a different sort of diet, called 'cron' (calorie restriction optimum nutrition), which is like eating just barely enough food not to starve to death. i do not know how effective it is because all the tumor studies were done on animals.

Please have some respect and point us to the source of this infomation. I know you ,being a skeptic, don't really expect us to just take your word for it.

[g4macdad]

There are many studies on fasting and ketosis. What I'm not aware of is a study that compares the effects of fasting and very low calorie diets on blood pressure and cholesterol. I'm not even aware of a study that compares the effects on blood pressure and cholesterol of low calorie ketogenic diets to low calorie non-ketogenic diets. There might very well be some, I just don't know of one.

In general the answer is that low-calorie is low-calorie. Ketosis makes a small difference in some effects, but fasting doesn't seem to have any special properties than low calorie diets don't have.

But it is my understanding that your body will not even reach the state of ketosis unless it is in a "starved" state. I am guessing you mean a really low calorie diet, (like juice for instance), not just any low calorie diet.

[ChristineR]

But it is my understanding that your body will not even reach the state of ketosis unless it is in a "starved" state. I am guessing you mean a really low calorie diet, (like juice for instance), not just any low calorie diet.

No, not quite. Ketosis is achieved by a low carbohydrate diet. Obviously ketosis evolved to help us human beings through low calorie times, but you can also achieve ketosis while on a high-calorie, low-carbohydrate diet.

That's the Atkins' diet. Juice diets are all carbohydrate calories, and are usually not ketogenic. It may only take about 100 - 200 calories of carbohydrates to pull someone out of ketosis. About 400-500 is typical. Juice diets are also usually laxative diets, but I suspect that they were invented by people who wanted to fast but didn't like the feeling of ketosis. They are the lowest calorie way out of ketosis.

So you have a whole bunch of variables: ketosis or not, low calorie or not, fasting or not.

[JJM]

I definately would not trust a site called" Quackwatch". Sounds like the Rush Limbaugh of medicine.You don't like the title, "quackwatch?" Do you know the meaning of the phrase "feeble argument?" Quackwatch is the best single source of information critical of "healthcare" nonsense on the web. "Believers" do often complain that it is relentlessly negative about quackery. However, that is like complaining that some social-service site is relentlessly negative about child abuse.

I believe ChristineR has covered the rational territory (perhaps somebody else mentioned the idiocy of the notion of "detoxification"). Where do you get the idea that you can evaluate health claims? You are certainly mistaken about any medicinal value in fasting (beyond an intestinal upset, as mentioned). A friend here would say: If you can't understand; maybe it's you: http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf (http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf) This is an article about unprepared people thinking they can sort out technical details.

[Dogdoctor]

g4macdad
What you are doing is presenting us a concept that is likely totally fabricated and asking us to provide you evidence that it isn't true. Generally speaking it works the other way around on this forum. If you want to say fasting is good for something you need to provide the evidence. However as you can see there is nothing to support the idea fasting provides health benefits.

[bruto]

Have you ever fasted?

More to the point, since you started this post: have you?

Fasting is ridiculously easy to experience for yourself. Just stop eating. Many have done it for various reasons, good or bad.

I tried it once long ago (not counting things like short fasts for medical tests, etc.) and can tell you from experience that it is not a good idea if your work involves the use of dangerous machinery. One man's euphoric is another man's stupid.

[ChristineR]

Detoxification may be the perfect pseudoscience idea. It's completely logical, for one thing, and there's ample evidence behind it's basic assumptions.

Poisons make you sick and weak. Therefore, if you are sick and weak, you may be poisoned.

Fecal matter is unhealthy. Stay away from it, and wash your hands. Therefore, fecal matter is a poison.

We are full of fecal matter. Therefore, if we empty it out, we are emptying out poisons.

Problem is, it's not true. Any poisons in the food were absorbed before it was turned into fecal matter. Once the poison is in the body, it's not going to get out through the lower intestine. Not eating will do you no good, unless the food you ate was poisonous, of course.

[g4macdad]

Detoxification may be the perfect pseudoscience idea. It's completely logical, for one thing, and there's ample evidence behind it's basic assumptions.

Poisons make you sick and weak. Therefore, if you are sick and weak, you may be poisoned.

Fecal matter is unhealthy. Stay away from it, and wash your hands. Therefore, fecal matter is a poison.

We are full of fecal matter. Therefore, if we empty it out, we are emptying out poisons.

Problem is, it's not true. Any poisons in the food were absorbed before it was turned into fecal matter. Once the poison is in the body, it's not going to get out through the lower intestine. Not eating will do you no good, unless the food you ate was poisonous, of course.

I am not here to argue believe it or not. But These assertions you are making sound more like opinions than medical facts.

There are sites that make incredible claims. There are sites that debunk all these claims. I believe the truth is probably in the middle someplace. If you read any of the published papers I posted the links to, you would know your complete skepticism about fasting is unfounded.

You seemed to have shifted at some point in you postings from somewhat open minded on the subject, to extreme oposition to every notion of benefit from fasting.

[ChristineR]

I am not here to argue believe it or not. But These assertions you are making sound more like opinions than medical facts.

There are sites that make incredible claims. There are sites that debunk all these claims. I believe the truth is probably in the middle someplace. If you read any of the published papers I posted the links to, you would know your complete skepticism about fasting is unfounded.

You seemed to have shifted at some point in you postings from somewhat open minded on the subject, to extreme oposition to every notion of benefit from fasting.

Ah, no. My position hasn't changed at all in the past six hours or so. It's a fairly complicated subject, but the simple truth is that the negatives far outweigh the positives for all but a very few situations. I don't know what you mean by "my complete skepticism."

None of your links to published studies said anything about detoxification, with one exception, that I can't even find right now. It was a small group of poisoned men who fasted.

So let me say it again as clearly as possible.

FASTING DOES NOTHING TO DETOXIFY YOU.

THERE ARE BENEFITS FROM RAPID WEIGHT LOSS; FASTING IS A METHOD OF RAPID WEIGHT LOSS.

THERE ARE HARMS FROM RAPID WEIGHT LOSS; FASTING IS A METHOD OF RAPID WEIGHT LOSS.

FOR ALMOST EVERYONE THE HARMS OUTWEIGH THE BENEFITS BUT PEOPLE DO IT ANYHOW FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL REASONS.

THERE IS NO GOOD EVIDENCE THAT FASTING DOES ANYTHING A VERY LOW CALORIE DIET DOES NOT.

THERE ARE VARIOUS KINDS OF VERY LOW CALORIE DIETS; THERE ARE VERY SMALL DIFFERENCES IN THEIR PHYSIOLOGICAL EFFECTS.

THE WEBSITE YOU LINKED TO IS NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE OF HEALTH INFORMATION.

Anything else?

[g4macdad]

Ah, no. My position hasn't changed at all in the past six hours or so. It's a fairly complicated subject, but the simple truth is that the negatives far outweigh the positives for all but a very few situations. I don't know what you mean by "my complete skepticism."

None of your links to published studies said anything about detoxification, with one exception, that I can't even find right now. It was a small group of poisoned men who fasted.

So let me say it again as clearly as possible.

FASTING DOES NOTHING TO DETOXIFY YOU.

THERE ARE BENEFITS FROM RAPID WEIGHT LOSS; FASTING IS A METHOD OF RAPID WEIGHT LOSS.

THERE ARE HARMS FROM RAPID WEIGHT LOSS; FASTING IS A METHOD OF RAPID WEIGHT LOSS.

FOR ALMOST EVERYONE THE HARMS OUTWEIGH THE BENEFITS BUT PEOPLE DO IT ANYHOW FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL REASONS.

THERE IS NO GOOD EVIDENCE THAT FASTING DOES ANYTHING A VERY LOW CALORIE DIET DOES NOT.

THERE ARE VARIOUS KINDS OF VERY LOW CALORIE DIETS; THERE ARE VERY SMALL DIFFERENCES IN THEIR PHYSIOLOGICAL EFFECTS.

THE WEBSITE YOU LINKED TO IS NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE OF HEALTH INFORMATION.

Anything else?

What website are you getting this info from? There are a lot of links you referred us to so I better be more specific.

Where is the link for this claim?

FOR ALMOST EVERYONE THE HARMS OUTWEIGH THE BENEFITS BUT PEOPLE DO IT ANYHOW FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL REASONS.

And this one?

THERE ARE VARIOUS KINDS OF VERY LOW CALORIE DIETS; THERE ARE VERY SMALL DIFFERENCES IN THEIR PHYSIOLOGICAL EFFECTS.

I will continue my own search too.

I refuse to have a one-stop "quackbuster" website to depend on. As I stated before, such a format is far too Limbaughish for me.

[g4macdad]

g4macdad
What you are doing is presenting us a concept that is likely totally fabricated and asking us to provide you evidence that it isn't true. Generally speaking it works the other way around on this forum. If you want to say fasting is good for something you need to provide the evidence. However as you can see there is nothing to support the idea fasting provides health benefits.

So I take it you didn't follow the links I gave to the published studies?

What I am doing, and what you assume I am doing seem to be totally different to me. You know what they say about assuming right?

[g4macdad]

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=51809

But Does Detox Really Remove Toxins?


In evaluating Page's detox diet, Dillard says, "Certainly, the human body carries huge loads of petrochemicals. We know people usually die with the full burden of PCBs they've ever been exposed to -- from fish, animals -- stuck in their liver. DDT sticks around, too."


But can fasting remove these? "Theoretically, yes," he says. "When fat is mobilized, anything that is fat-soluble should be mobilized, too -- should, that is," Dillard tells WebMD.


Although there are no studies of juice fasts/diets, water fasting does have some scientific evidence behind it -- "but very scant," admits Strychacz.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

So I take it you didn't follow the links I gave to the published studies?

What I am doing, and what you assume I am doing seem to be totally different to me. You know what they say about assuming right?

What you are doing is "Research by Google". Anyone can "publish" anything they want on the WWW. Some of the people you are disputing with appear to have real knowledge of real medicine.

You said in your original post:

I saw someplace where fasting is widely used as a medical treatment. This subject seems pretty fascinating.

And asked:

Does anyone here have any knowledge on the subject to share?

They have shared REAL knowlege with you but they cannot educate you to evaluate what they have said.

Go and learn basic biology and how the human body works and you will understand why the benefits claimed for fasting are simply just not true.

Your dislike of Quackwatch because you don't like the name I find particularly amusing. :boggled:

[g4macdad]

What you are doing is "Research by Google". Anyone can "publish" anything they want on the WWW. Some of the people you are disputing with appear to have real knowledge of real medicine.

You said in your original post:



And asked:



They have shared REAL knowlege with you but they cannot educate you to evaluate what they have said.

Go and learn basic biology and how the human body works and you will understand why the benefits claimed for fasting are simply just not true.

Your dislike of Quackwatch because you don't like the name I find particularly amusing. :boggled:

I never claimed I didn't like Quackwatch. I said the format is garbage as is anything said there. I would not give anything published there a moments consideration. And from your post I can tell you didn't follow the links either. I have an idea, try following the links before you scrutinize them?

BTW no links were given to quackwatch so don't even go there.

[parrotslave]

I'm happy to see this thread. I was thinking of starting one on BDNF (brain-derived neurotrophic factor) that would have been somewhat related.

Several times this month I've seen or read about research on calorie restriction and its effect on aging so I decided to dig a little deeper.

Plus it got me thinking, loss of appetite is often a symptom of illness. Why is that?


Research in Rhesus monkeys and rats shows that calorie restriction boosts the immune system. Other benefits claimed are lowered systolic blood pressure, improved thyroid function, improved cardiovascular health, increased levels of the hormone DHEA, reduced risk of autoimmune disease, and reduced incidence of lymphoma, kidney disease and certain cancers.

These benefits are for calorie restriction with adequate nutrition and not fasting.

After looking through some of the online research on the topic, I started reading the personal testimonials of people who actually follow calorie restriction to see how difficult it would be to live like that.

What intrigued me the most was one fellow's regimen of eating one meal a day and fasting until the next day's meal. He mentioned a surge of BDNF he gets from fasting that gives him a slightly euphoric feeling similar to what you get when you start to fall in love.

So then I had to find out more about BDNF and see if it is a good thing. Turns out it is. BDNF helps to support the survival of existing neurons, and encourage the growth and differentiation of new neurons and synapses.

And it turns out they are experimenting with using the BDNF boost that comes from fasting to treat Huntington's disease in rats.

[ChristineR]

What website are you getting this info from? There are a lot of links you referred us to so I better be more specific.

Where is the link for this claim?



And this one?



I will continue my own search too.

I refuse to have a one-stop "quackbuster" website to depend on. As I stated before, such a format is far too Limbaughish for me.

You don't want to read some books.

Quackwatch (http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/detox.html)I gave you as a starting point for the non-existence of detoxification. Its links are limited as there is nothing to link to.

How many links and studies and books shall I give you? I kind of want to go do something else for a while.

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/AnS/psychology/health_psychology/fasting1.htm

This paper (http://www.obesityresearch.org/cgi/reprint/12/suppl_2/130S.pdf) has twenty-four cites.

http://bjsm.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/35/6/390
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12704397&dopt=Abstract
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0876/is_n66/ai_14192497

[JoeEllison]

Wonderful. More quackery.

How can "not eating" be a treatment for ANYTHING? And, of course, whenever some quack says "detoxification", it pretty much means they have no clue what they are talking about.

[bruto]

I never claimed I didn't like Quackwatch. I said the format is garbage as is anything said there. I would not give anything published there a moments consideration. And from your post I can tell you didn't follow the links either. I have an idea, try following the links before you scrutinize them?

BTW no links were given to quackwatch so don't even go there.

Perhaps you're not accustomed to rigor with regard to contradiction, but could you possibly explain how proclaiming that everything on a site is garbage and unworthy of a moment's consideration is consistent with stating that you never claimed you didn't like it? If that's liking something, I'd sure like to see what you don't like!

[Dr. Imago]

Wonderful. More quackery.

How can "not eating" be a treatment for ANYTHING? And, of course, whenever some quack says "detoxification", it pretty much means they have no clue what they are talking about.

Well, there is the ketogenic diet that works for some patients with refractory epilepsy, usually children. They are essentially "forced" to eat nothing except for a high-fat, carbohydrate-free diet. This is not the same as starving, though. However, the purported origins of such a diet were rooted in the observation and documentation of children in ancient Syrian culture who had "fits" that seemed to disappear during times of food supply shortages, namely droughts that impacted grain yields. Interesting.

-Dr. Imago

[g4macdad]

Wonderful. More quackery.

How can "not eating" be a treatment for ANYTHING? And, of course, whenever some quack says "detoxification", it pretty much means they have no clue what they are talking about.

Is this a fact? Are we supposed to take your word on it?

Why do you insist on trolling in threads where you have absolutely no contribution?

[Dogdoctor]

So I take it you didn't follow the links I gave to the published studies?

What I am doing, and what you assume I am doing seem to be totally different to me. You know what they say about assuming right?

Those published studies don't support your position. What is it that I am assuming about you? Is it or is it not true that you believe fasting has health benefits?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I never claimed I didn't like Quackwatch. I said the format is garbage as is anything said there. I would not give anything published there a moments consideration. And from your post I can tell you didn't follow the links either. I have an idea, try following the links before you scrutinize them?

BTW no links were given to quackwatch so don't even go there.

Snicker.

[strathmeyer]

Is this a fact? Are we supposed to take your word on it?

Why do you insist on trolling in threads where you have absolutely no contribution?

Why are you posting here if you're just going to complain whenever someone tries to have a conversation with you? That seems a lot like trolling.

[PixyMisa]

I think he's looking for attention, and probably praise. Why he would do that on a skeptics forum of all places is something I can't explain.

[Mojo]

Have you ever fasted?
More to the point, since you started this post: have you?


He's doing it right now: he has some delicious crow (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2744653#post2744653) ready for him, but hasn't let a scrap of it pass his lips.

[cyborg]

Yep. He's just being a little contrarian because he had his ass handed to him and he's being a big baby about it.

[ChristineR]

You know, it occurred to me that I could make a web site called "The Pros and Cons of Fasting" and write the same stuff that I wrote here and then link to my own web site and then g4macdad might take my comments seriously.

[casebro]

But has an blood test ever shown that the level of any harmful substance is actually lowered by fasting?

[JoeEllison]

Here, let me ask again:

How can "not eating" be a treatment for ANYTHING?

[ChristineR]

But has an blood test ever shown that the level of any harmful substance is actually lowered by fasting?

What do you mean by harmful substance? If you count cholesterol, heck yes.

[strathmeyer]

I think he's looking for attention, and probably praise. Why he would do that on a skeptics forum of all places is something I can't explain.

Well then, can we please start praising him already?

g4macdad, this is an incredibly interesting thread until it was ruined by a few individuals. I hope this doesn't prevent you from making great posts in the future. I am also miffed that nobody seems to be able to give you a college level education in the matter through their posts here, and I can't believe all these people who can't are posting replies. Please keep up the good work.

[bruto]

Well then, can we please start praising him already?

g4macdad, this is an incredibly interesting thread until it was ruined by a few individuals. I hope this doesn't prevent you from making great posts in the future. I am also miffed that nobody seems to be able to give you a college level education in the matter through their posts here, and I can't believe all these people who can't are posting replies. Please keep up the good work.

Or he could try the more direct method. Fast and obtain enlightenment. I've heard it is possible. Since I cannot disprove the theory, it must be true, so I heartily recommend it to G4macdad. We could all use some enlightenment, and as soon as he has achieved his, I'm quite confident he will spread it around.

[parrotslave]

Fasting Forestalls Huntington's Disease in Mice (http://www.nia.nih.gov/NewsAndEvents/PressReleases/PR20030210Fasting.htm)

Meal Skipping Helps Rodents Resist Diabetes, Brain Damage (http://www.nia.nih.gov/NewsAndEvents/PressReleases/PR20030428MealSkipping.htm)

Calorie Restriction Enhances T Cell Mediated Immune Response in Overweight Men and Women (http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/Publications.htm?seq_no_115=201740)

Pubmed Central has 199 citations for "immune calorie restriction" that I'm not going to list here. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?tool=QuerySuggestion&cmd=search&db=pmc&term=immune%20calorie%20restriction)

[g4macdad]

I think this post has singled out the trolling trouble makers. We should all take note of these posters for future reference.

Thank you, to those with serious replies. I had almost given up hope for this forum.

[nails3jesus0]

Please have some respect and point us to the source of this infomation. I know you ,being a skeptic, don't really expect us to just take your word for it.

excuse me? :mad:

you asked for 'knowledge' in your extremely vague opening post, and i provided it. Im not going to have any respect for you when you address me in such a manner, YOU decided to act disrespectfully when you hit 'submit' on this reply. If you wanted links you should have asked instead of acting as though I was being rude to you when I posted exactly what you asked for. You can use google if you want to learn more about CRON or ketones(or you could have asked for evidence in a manner that isnt so rude but its a bit late for that now), because I am done with this thread, and putting you on ignore for the numerous childish things you have posted. especially your OMG BIG LETTERS ROFL 'moderator!!' post. thats what the report button is for, there was no reason for you to post such an obnoxious childish thing in response to a percieved rules violation.

[JoeEllison]

I think this post has singled out the trolling trouble makers. We should all take note of these posters for future reference.

Thank you, to those with serious replies. I had almost given up hope for this forum.

So, how is "not eating" a treatment for anything?

[Mojo]

I think this post has singled out the trolling trouble makers. Yes, it has (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2787650&postcount=1).We should all take note of these posters for future reference.


Note taken.

[Dogdoctor]

Fasting Forestalls Huntington's Disease in Mice (http://www.nia.nih.gov/NewsAndEvents/PressReleases/PR20030210Fasting.htm)

Meal Skipping Helps Rodents Resist Diabetes, Brain Damage (http://www.nia.nih.gov/NewsAndEvents/PressReleases/PR20030428MealSkipping.htm)

Calorie Restriction Enhances T Cell Mediated Immune Response in Overweight Men and Women (http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/Publications.htm?seq_no_115=201740)

Pubmed Central has 199 citations for "immune calorie restriction" that I'm not going to list here. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?tool=QuerySuggestion&cmd=search&db=pmc&term=immune%20calorie%20restriction)

Those are more interesting than those posted by the original poster but still the first two involve mice not men and even for mice a study would need to be done looking for adverse effects of fasting verses calorie restriction by other methods. The rest is about calorie restriction and not fasting. Still thanks for the links. They are very interesting.

[JoeEllison]

Those are more interesting than those posted by the original poster but still the first two involve mice not men and even for mice a study would need to be done looking for adverse effects of fasting verses calorie restriction by other methods. The rest is about calorie restriction and not fasting. Still thanks for the links. They are very interesting.
Yeah, we know that eating less is probably better than eating more, all other things being equal. :)

I'm not sure what good "eating nothing" will do for you, and "somebody" refuses to answer the question.

[bruto]

I still wonder why g4macdad in his eagerness for good, confirmed, reliable evidence, has not taken the obvious and simple step of providing it from experience. It is extremely easy - all too easy, in fact - to fast. Millions of people on earth do it without checking JREF first for directions.

Here's how you do it: stop eating. Continue as long as you can. Take notes.

[strathmeyer]

I think this post has singled out the trolling trouble makers. We should all take note of these posters for future reference.

Which post?

[Katana]

Which post?


Yep. Not sure I'm following that one myself, strathmeyer.

[RandomX]

I know that this is just anecdotal, but you will just have to take my word for it....

I can say from experience that fasting for about 12 days is Not Good. After you kill the hunger pains with water, and the euphoria kicks in it is tolerable... but you are always aware of just how hungry you are.

The drop in blood sugar really threw my mental state into "perma-grump", I was semi-delirious, and physically weak and uncoordinated.

In fact, the experience has created in me a weird hang-up: I get really, really nervous when I have no food in the house... I go into a hoarding mode where I have to have the cupboards full of food, usually staples and
canned goods. It's gotten better in the twenty years since then, but it still lurks there.

I don't recommend it.


X

[Frogberto]

NPR had a story about the benefits of fasting lately, which led me back to this thread:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16513299

...Dr. Naomi Neufeld, an endocrinologist at UCLA...says it doesn't hurt — it might even help the body — to fast or stop eating for short periods of time, say 24 hours once a week, as long as you drink water.

"You re-tune the body, suppress insulin secretion, reduce the taste for sugar, so sugar becomes something you're less fond of taking," Neufeld says.

Eventually the body burns up stored sugars, or glycogen, so less insulin is needed to help the body digest food. That gives the pancreas a rest. On juice diets recommended by some spas, you may lose weight, but your digestive system doesn't get that rest.

Mark Mattson, a scientist with the National Institute on Aging, says that when we convert food into energy, our bodies create a lot of byproducts we could do without, including free radicals.

"These free radicals will attack proteins, DNA, the nucleus of cells, the membranes of cells," Mattson says. "They can damage all those different molecules in cells."

Mattson thinks partial fasting has numerous benefits, from improving glucose regulation, which can protect against diabetes, to also lowering blood pressure. Some animal studies have also shown that partial fasting has very beneficial effects on the brain, protecting against Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and stroke.

Partial fasting may even extend lifespan because eating less sends a message to the cells of the body that they should conserve and use energy more efficiently.

"When they're exposed to a mild stress, [the body's cells] sort of expect that maybe this is going to happen again," Mattson says. "So maybe next time I may have to go longer without food, so I'd better be able to deal with that when it comes on."

...

Proponents say small, short-term studies find that complete fasting lowers blood pressure and reduces cancer risk. But Dr. Naomi Neufeld worries that complete fasting could be harmful. After the first few days of liquid only, the body uses up all its stored glucose to make energy. And then it turns to other sources, including fat and muscle.

"The main tissue that's the target in long-term fasting is muscle, because muscle has readily available amino acids which can be converted to glucose right away," Neufeld says. "In that way, your brain is never deprived of needed glucose."

The problem, Neufeld says, is that when muscle breaks down, potentially toxic proteins are released. These proteins are partly composed of nitrogen, and too much nitrogen in the body can be toxic to the kidneys and liver. That's when starvation is officially under way.

[Dogdoctor]

NPR had a story about the benefits of fasting lately, which led me back to this thread:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16513299

This is an opinion article and doesn't present any new data to support the claims made for fasting.

[Frogberto]

It may be semantics, but NPR has several "Opinion" commentators, and an "Opinion" section, and this wasn't posted as "Opinion" - it was carried as a news item.

And I'm sure I don't have to tell you that NPR isn't a peer reviewed journal -- it's a (well respected) public broadcasting network.

"Doesn't present any new data to support the claims made for fasting?" I'd say it presents different data to support the claims made in this thread. More specifically, I added it to the argument here after hearing the piece listed on their Health and Science podcast. I think it's relevant to the debate.

More specifically, since at least one poster requested, repeatedly, data on "what good eating nothing will do you", and claimed that people refused to answer that question, the statements of the UCLA Endocrinologist quoted on fasting.

If you're looking for more scholarly articles, try this one:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/k5424lq79185l766/

[Dogdoctor]

It may be semantics, but NPR has several "Opinion" commentators, and an "Opinion" section, and this wasn't posted as "Opinion" - it was carried as a news item.

And I'm sure I don't have to tell you that NPR isn't a peer reviewed journal -- it's a (well respected) public broadcasting network.

"Doesn't present any new data to support the claims made for fasting?" I'd say it presents different data to support the claims made in this thread. More specifically, I added it to the argument here after hearing the piece listed on their Health and Science podcast. I think it's relevant to the debate.

More specifically, since at least one poster requested, repeatedly, data on "what good eating nothing will do you", and claimed that people refused to answer that question, the statements of the UCLA Endocrinologist quoted on fasting.

If you're looking for more scholarly articles, try this one:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/k5424lq79185l766/
This study doesn't support claims that fasting has any real benefits or that those benefits outweigh the detriments of fasting. What needs to be done is comparisoms of fasting for a given length of time with an outcome that shows some real health benfit like you live longer or have less days sick or some real value to fasting over caloric restriction or other methods of accomplishing whatever fasting does.

[Frogberto]

But that's overstretching the "claims" of the news item I posted earlier.

The endocrinologist quoted stated that fasting no longer than 24 hours does have small benefits, limited to "suppress[ing] insulin secretion, reduc[ing] the taste for sugar", and causing the body to ,burn up stored sugars, or glycogen, so less insulin is needed to help the body digest food. That gives the pancreas a rest, as the article mentions, so long as you're not ingesting fruit or other juices as part of the fast.

The main detriment of fasting is starvation, of course, but also the loss of muscle mass. That wouldn't be present in a fast of 12 to 24 hours, which is what we're talking about in this article, limited, as recommended, to once per week at the most.

Fasting is "caloric restriction" at its most extreme, and there are longevity and health benefits to caloric restriction. Fasting once per week would, it would seem, reduce calories by 1/7th, almost by definition, assuming all other factors remain the same.

And here's where it becomes apparent that you didn't even do a cursory review of the article, which states:

"...simply limiting the calories you consume may be beneficial. He points to studies where rats and mice were fed every other day. Compared with those fed normal daily diets, there was a reduction in disease among the rats that were severely restricted in their food intake. Mattson says those findings hold promise that humans could also benefit from partial fasting.

Mattson thinks partial fasting has numerous benefits, from improving glucose regulation, which can protect against diabetes, to also lowering blood pressure. Some animal studies have also shown that partial fasting has very beneficial effects on the brain, protecting against Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and stroke.

Partial fasting may even extend lifespan because eating less sends a message to the cells of the body that they should conserve and use energy more efficiently. "

You're not going to see a study like you propose --- ever. You must realize that it isn't ethical to cage humans for life and starve them for various lengths of time, while controlling for genetics, exercise, exposure to pollution, or other factors, and see when they die?

This study doesn't support claims that fasting has any real benefits or that those benefits outweigh the detriments of fasting. What needs to be done is comparisoms of fasting for a given length of time with an outcome that shows some real health benfit like you live longer or have less days sick or some real value to fasting over caloric restriction or other methods of accomplishing whatever fasting does.

[Dogdoctor]

But that's overstretching the "claims" of the news item I posted earlier.

The endocrinologist quoted stated that fasting no longer than 24 hours does have small benefits, limited to "suppress[ing] insulin secretion, reduc[ing] the taste for sugar", and causing the body to ,burn up stored sugars, or glycogen, so less insulin is needed to help the body digest food. That gives the pancreas a rest, as the article mentions, so long as you're not ingesting fruit or other juices as part of the fast.

The main detriment of fasting is starvation, of course, but also the loss of muscle mass. That wouldn't be present in a fast of 12 to 24 hours, which is what we're talking about in this article, limited, as recommended, to once per week at the most.

Fasting is "caloric restriction" at its most extreme, and there are longevity and health benefits to caloric restriction. Fasting once per week would, it would seem, reduce calories by 1/7th, almost by definition, assuming all other factors remain the same.

And here's where it becomes apparent that you didn't even do a cursory review of the article, which states:



You're not going to see a study like you propose --- ever. You must realize that it isn't ethical to cage humans for life and starve them for various lengths of time, while controlling for genetics, exercise, exposure to pollution, or other factors, and see when they die?

The benefits stated by the endocrinologist are theoretical benefits. People may have the changes noticed but that they were beneficial to the people who fasted was not demonstrated. Glucose level regulation ocurs without fasting so what benefit does it provide? Does it mean that someone is less likely to be diabetic? Wheres the data supporting that? Does it mean that someone will loose weight better? No data supporting that? If there will never be a study done showing what I propose then that is because there is no real health benefit that can be imagined from fasting. While fasting is a method of caloric restriciton, caloric restriction is not fasting as there are other ways to accomplish caloric restriction.