Health Benifits of Fasting

[NobleSavage]

I tend to lump these claims into pseudoscience. I've heard people making these claims for a long time.

Recently, Diane Rehm had a show on it: https://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2014-01-09/latest-research-intermittent-fasting-0 (there is a transcript if you don't want to listen to it.

What do you think?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Well, we evolved from scavengers, so we probably went long times without food, then gorged on someone else's kill.
Maybe fasting is the real paleo diet?

 

[bilby]

Well, we evolved from scavengers, so we probably went long times without food, then gorged on someone else's kill.
Maybe fasting is the real paleo diet?

Historical diets certainly lead to significant weight loss. I am not sure that I would recommend them on that basis, however.

 

[skepticalbip]

Dunno but it seems to me that not eating because there is no food makes some sort of sense. But the major activity during that time should be trying to find food, not doing nothing but congratulating yourself on how wonderful it is. My body generally signals me quite strongly when it needs fuel and I always try to pay attention to my body's signals. I dress warmer when it signals core temperature is dropping, get out of the sun when it signals it is getting too hot, drink when it signals dehydration, and eat when it signals low fuel. So far this system has worked pretty well. I don't see the sense in ignoring it.

 

[thebeave]

Dunno but it seems to me that not eating because there is no food makes some sort of sense. But the major activity during that time should be trying to find food, not doing nothing but congratulating yourself on how wonderful it is. My body generally signals me quite strongly when it needs fuel and I always try to pay attention to my body's signals. I dress warmer when it signals core temperature is dropping, get out of the sun when it signals it is getting too hot, drink when it signals dehydration, and eat when it signals low fuel. So far this system has worked pretty well. I don't see the sense in ignoring it.

But...but, you'll be missing out on the latest health fad! You don't want to feel all alone and isolated, do you?

 

[Bronzeage]

I make it a point to not eat when there is no food. It's sort of a spiritual thing.

The only way that fasting could be of benefit is if the current diet is unhealthy in some way or another. If one has been eating pesticide laced vegetables, it might seem like a proper diet, but cutting back on the malathion couldn't do any harm.

I remember meeting a young woman who told me she was a vegetarian. I later discovered her diet consisted mainly of french fries from the fried chicken stand across the street from her apartment.

 

[PyramidHead]

I don't think intentional fasting is such a good strategy, but neither is eating on an arbitrary schedule. We are conditioned by the way our workday is laid out, to eat something in the morning, something bigger at around noon, and another big something in the evening. There is no biological reason for this, as we probably evolved to eat sporadically and store energy for long periods of time. I'm not saying skip meals, just don't feel like you have to have a big amount of food just because of what the clock says, when you're really not even hungry.

Off topic: I was surprised to learn that the same thing is the case about sleep. Until the industrial revolution, the idea of getting all of one's sleep "out of the way" in one 8-hour block during the night wasn't as widespread. People would sleep a little while, get up for a bit, go back to sleep. They might catch some sleep during the daytime too, which nowadays is associated with lazing around (at least in the US).

 

[Keith&Co.]

They might catch some sleep during the daytime too, which nowadays is associated with lazing around (at least in the US).

I associate it with maturity.
If you ask Americans if they want to put their heads down and take a nap, children, even those who clearly, desperately need a nap will stomp their foot and resist.

Grown ups will say, "Yes, PLEASE!"

 

[Bronzeage]

I don't think intentional fasting is such a good strategy, but neither is eating on an arbitrary schedule. We are conditioned by the way our workday is laid out, to eat something in the morning, something bigger at around noon, and another big something in the evening. There is no biological reason for this, as we probably evolved to eat sporadically and store energy for long periods of time. I'm not saying skip meals, just don't feel like you have to have a big amount of food just because of what the clock says, when you're really not even hungry.

Off topic: I was surprised to learn that the same thing is the case about sleep. Until the industrial revolution, the idea of getting all of one's sleep "out of the way" in one 8-hour block during the night wasn't as widespread. People would sleep a little while, get up for a bit, go back to sleep. They might catch some sleep during the daytime too, which nowadays is associated with lazing around (at least in the US).

Why would an animal such as a human, who has relatively poor night vision get up in the middle of the night and wander around in the dark?

 

[crispy]

Apparently im fasting 16 hours every day.. I eat my dinner at 7, then I dont eat till noon the next day... well except for coffee, and the occasional handful of nuts from the basket at work...

My concentration is fine, and I even bike 10 km to work. I don't really think too much about it, its just odd is all

 

[skepticalbip]

Why would an animal such as a human, who has relatively poor night vision get up in the middle of the night and wander around in the dark?

Before the use of gaslights quickly followed by electric lights, humans were subject to the same amount of darkness as they were daylight. You will find occasional references to "second sleep" if you read old literature from before the gaslight era. Apparently, it was common then for people to retire to bed fairly soon after sunset, sleep for a few hours, wake in the middle of the night, get up and tend to a few chores, then go back to bed to sleep (the "second sleep") until sunrise. I have wondered if this wasn't possibly some holdover from hunter-gather times when they would take shifts standing watch through the night to protect the group from night predators.

 

[Bronzeage]

Why would an animal such as a human, who has relatively poor night vision get up in the middle of the night and wander around in the dark?

Before the use of gaslights quickly followed by electric lights, humans were subject to the same amount of darkness as they were daylight. You will find occasional references to "second sleep" if you read old literature from before the gaslight era. Apparently, it was common then for people to retire to bed fairly soon after sunset, sleep for a few hours, wake in the middle of the night, get up and tend to a few chores, then go back to bed to sleep (the "second sleep") until sunrise. I have wondered if this wasn't possibly some holdover from hunter-gather times when they would take shifts standing watch through the night to protect the group from night predators.

I know why I wake up every morning sometime around 3 of 4 am, but it's a chore which is quickly attended and I go back to sleep.

 

[TSwizzle]

I tend to lump these claims into pseudoscience. I've heard people making these claims for a long time.

Recently, Diane Rehm had a show on it: https://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2014-01-09/latest-research-intermittent-fasting-0 (there is a transcript if you don't want to listen to it.

What do you think?

I didn't read the research they are talking about if it says that intermittent fasting is good for you then I suppose it must be ? Although fasting for three days seems extreme.

 

[fast]

I don't think intentional fasting is such a good strategy, but neither is eating on an arbitrary schedule. We are conditioned by the way our workday is laid out, to eat something in the morning, something bigger at around noon, and another big something in the evening. There is no biological reason for this, as we probably evolved to eat sporadically and store energy for long periods of time. I'm not saying skip meals, just don't feel like you have to have a big amount of food just because of what the clock says, when you're really not even hungry.

Off topic: I was surprised to learn that the same thing is the case about sleep. Until the industrial revolution, the idea of getting all of one's sleep "out of the way" in one 8-hour block during the night wasn't as widespread. People would sleep a little while, get up for a bit, go back to sleep. They might catch some sleep during the daytime too, which nowadays is associated with lazing around (at least in the US).

Why would an animal such as a human, who has relatively poor night vision get up in the middle of the night and wander around in the dark?

Stalkers are people too!

 

[whichphilosophy]

Before the use of gaslights quickly followed by electric lights, humans were subject to the same amount of darkness as they were daylight. You will find occasional references to "second sleep" if you read old literature from before the gaslight era. Apparently, it was common then for people to retire to bed fairly soon after sunset, sleep for a few hours, wake in the middle of the night, get up and tend to a few chores, then go back to bed to sleep (the "second sleep") until sunrise. I have wondered if this wasn't possibly some holdover from hunter-gather times when they would take shifts standing watch through the night to protect the group from night predators.

I know why I wake up every morning sometime around 3 of 4 am, but it's a chore which is quickly attended and I go back to sleep.

Muslims get up around that time for their first prayers. May this would help if converting to Islam

 

[RavenSky]

Why would an animal such as a human, who has relatively poor night vision get up in the middle of the night and wander around in the dark?

Before the use of gaslights quickly followed by electric lights, humans were subject to the same amount of darkness as they were daylight. You will find occasional references to "second sleep" if you read old literature from before the gaslight era. Apparently, it was common then for people to retire to bed fairly soon after sunset, sleep for a few hours, wake in the middle of the night, get up and tend to a few chores, then go back to bed to sleep (the "second sleep") until sunrise. I have wondered if this wasn't possibly some holdover from hunter-gather times when they would take shifts standing watch through the night to protect the group from night predators.

I've read about this, too. It's interesting

 

[One]

I didn't read the research they are talking about if it says that intermittent fasting is good for you then I suppose it must be ? Although fasting for three days seems extreme.

Three days is not extreme to most adherents of fasting regimes. I was raised Seventh Day Adventist. Since childhood, we would go on periodic fasts at least once a month for three day duration. Only water was allowed. The second day is actually the hardest. By day 3, the body "resets" itself to adopt without food. You have bursts of energy and other types of physical manifestations. The central idea behind fasting is the rid the body of toxins and "spiritual uncleanliness." Basically, it's flushing out the body with water.

From this point, you can reestablish whatever diet you would like to cultivate.

Fasting does has its uses. There are types of yoga that you can't do with food in the system as it directs the body's energy towards digestion, for example. I know people that have drastically altered their diet for the better this way. Is it a good method? Who knows.

 

[bilby]

I didn't read the research they are talking about if it says that intermittent fasting is good for you then I suppose it must be ? Although fasting for three days seems extreme.

Three days is not extreme to most adherents of fasting regimes. I was raised Seventh Day Adventist. Since childhood, we would go on periodic fasts at least once a month for three day duration. Only water was allowed. The second day is actually the hardest. By day 3, the body "resets" itself to adopt without food. You have bursts of energy and other types of physical manifestations. The central idea behind fasting is the rid the body of toxins and "spiritual uncleanliness." Basically, it's flushing out the body with water.

From this point, you can reestablish whatever diet you would like to cultivate.

Fasting does has its uses. There are types of yoga that you can't do with food in the system as it directs the body's energy towards digestion, for example. I know people that have drastically altered their diet for the better this way. Is it a good method? Who knows.

Whatever fasting might have as benefits, ridding the body of toxins isn't one of them.

Toxins in the body are eliminated by the liver and kidneys. Both work more effectively when you are well fed; but in a healthy person, both will continue to work effectively even if all you consume is water, as long as the 'water only' regime lasts for no more than a few days. Any action that is claimed to 'rid your body of toxins' is almost certainly pure woo - unless you are being hooked up to a dialysis machine.

The human body is pretty good at balancing the concentration of various solutes; if you consume more water than is needed for this, it is excreted by the kidneys, with very little other stuff - drink a lot, and you can flush out some salts, but not much else will leave via the urine other than water. Drink enough water, fast enough, and the kidneys can't keep up, and you die. Drink lots of water without consuming salt to replace what is flushed out, and you will get very sick, and may die.

Drink very little water, and the kidneys and liver will still flush out all the toxins you need to get rid of; the kidneys will recover as much water as possible, and your urine will become very dark. No fewer toxins are excreted in this situation than in any other. If you drink so little water that you risk not being able to flush out all of the toxins generated by your metabolism, then you will be very thirsty; and you may die. However your death will not be due to 'toxins' as such; they are just one element of fatally severe dehydration.

There is no evidence at all that it is possible to direct the body's energy towards digestion, other than by eating food.

It is a good idea to drink enough water to avoid very dark coloured urine; but most healthy people will naturally do this, because they get thirsty long before they get sufficiently dehydrated for it to be a problem; drinking too much water can be avoided by simply not drinking unless you are thirsty.

There is a very popular modern myth that people should drink a lot of water - the common version of this myth says that people should drink 2 litres (eight cups) of water per day. This has its origins in advice from the US Food and Nutrition Board of the National Research Council; their advice read "A suitable allowance for adults is 2.5 litres daily in most instances. Most of this quantity is contained in prepared foods". Food contains a lot of water - not just directly as water, but also chemically bound to the food, particularly in carbohydrates, which when metabolised produce carbon dioxide and water.

The fact is that conscious control of water levels in humans works about as poorly as conscious control of breathing - the body can usually deal with it, but it's needless, and if taken to extremes, can be harmful. Humans have evolved perfectly good autonomic processes to control water levels, and if you follow the signals - drink when thirsty, stop when sated - you will be just fine.

 

[One]

Whatever fasting might have as benefits, ridding the body of toxins isn't one of them.

I will respectfully disagree with you based on my experiences. I can't speak for others nor am I attempting to prove something. So I am not trying to debate.
The second day of fasting is difficult because the body begins to expunge things from the system, especially through sweat. The body smell and functionality is very different. By Day 3 or 4, all these things cease. As do cravings for sugary foods and substances high in fat. I have also seen people with particularly toxic diets go on a fast and come out of it with renewed vitality, energy and a sudden dislike of unhealthy food they previously gorged on.

Both work more effectively when you are well fed; but in a healthy person, both will continue to work effectively even if all you consume is water, as long as the 'water only' regime lasts for no more than a few days.

That's just it - most people aren't healthy. They eat processed poisons on a daily basis.

There is no evidence at all that it is possible to direct the body's energy towards digestion, other than by eating food.

What I stated was that there are aspects of yoga and other training that you can't do when the body is occupied by the digestive process. Many of these same traditions also use fasting at some point - woo or not.

The fact is that conscious control of water levels in humans works about as poorly as conscious control of breathing - the body can usually deal with it, but it's needless, and if taken to extremes, can be harmful. Humans have evolved perfectly good autonomic processes to control water levels, and if you follow the signals - drink when thirsty, stop when sated - you will be just fine.

I will also disagree with this as well.

Conscious control of water intake and the breath can alter a life for the better. Again, I cite experiences with yoga and martial arts, which cultivate control of both.
So while none of this is scientific, it certainly worked for me. That's why I ended my last post with "who knows?"

 

[bilby]

I will respectfully disagree with you based on my experiences. I can't speak for others nor am I attempting to prove something. So I am not trying to debate.

That's good; because biochemistry disagrees with the whole idea of 'toxins' that can be eliminated by diet/fasting/yoga/mineral water/aligning chackras/buying my latest video/etc.

Fasting causes lots of changes in the way one feels, smells, etc. None of these changes is mysterious to medical science; nor are any of them anything to do with 'toxins'.

The second day of fasting is difficult because the body begins to expunge things from the system, especially through sweat. The body smell and functionality is very different. By Day 3 or 4, all these things cease. As do cravings for sugary foods and substances high in fat. I have also seen people with particularly toxic diets go on a fast and come out of it with renewed vitality, energy and a sudden dislike of unhealthy food they previously gorged on.

The only thing a person with a toxic diet does is get sick and die. Almost nobody eats toxins in quantities that are noticeable. Those who do get very sick indeed.

Both work more effectively when you are well fed; but in a healthy person, both will continue to work effectively even if all you consume is water, as long as the 'water only' regime lasts for no more than a few days.

That's just it - most people aren't healthy. They eat processed poisons on a daily basis.

I am sorry, but that is simply not true - except in the trivial sense that everything is toxic at high enough doses.

Processed foods are in no way more toxic than any other kind of foods. They might not, on their own, form a good, balanced, nutritious diet; But that has nothing to do with toxicity.

There is no evidence at all that it is possible to direct the body's energy towards digestion, other than by eating food.

What I stated was that there are aspects of yoga and other training that you can't do when the body is occupied by the digestive process. Many of these same traditions also use fasting at some point - woo or not.

Sure, if your stomach is full, then some yoga positions will be uncomfortable. That has nothing to do with any toxins though.

The fact is that conscious control of water levels in humans works about as poorly as conscious control of breathing - the body can usually deal with it, but it's needless, and if taken to extremes, can be harmful. Humans have evolved perfectly good autonomic processes to control water levels, and if you follow the signals - drink when thirsty, stop when sated - you will be just fine.

I will also disagree with this as well.

It doesn't matter whether you agree or not; it remains true. Science is like that.

Conscious control of water intake and the breath can alter a life for the better. Again, I cite experiences with yoga and martial arts, which cultivate control of both.
So while none of this is scientific, it certainly worked for me. That's why I ended my last post with "who knows?"

I know. But then, studying biochemistry and molecular biology for years will do that.

Conscious control of water intake and the breath can make you feel good; but that has nothing to do with toxins of any kind. Lots of things make people feel good; some are actually good for us; some are harmful; many are neutral. Feeling good is not a sign of a lack of toxins, as any drunk can tell you at 3am.

It amazes me how many people think that their ignorance is a solid basis for belief.