IMHO, the best way to fast, if you’re not just going to abstain altogether from calories, is to drink raw, freshly made fruit/veggie juices. They contain more nutrients, and taste better.
I lost about 15 lbs last spring doing the every other day fasting. I basically ate whatever I wanted on the eating days, and nothing on the fast days except water/coffee/tea or other non-caloric beverages.
I stopped because I was starting to get obsessive about food. I regained about half the weight when I went back to eating every day but netted a 6-7 lb loss for the year. I’ll take it.
You can find a small number of MDs who will sign off on any loon-ass thing someone thinks up. When the ratio of MD opinion on a practice is 99:1 or higher, it means either that the one-percenters are nuts, deluded or selling magic beans, or that the 99% are suppressing real cures so they can keep getting rich at humanity’s expense.
I know which way to bet on that.
Unfortunately we can never have an intelligent discussion on fasting on this forum because many members here suffer from “motivated skepticism.”
They WANT to believe that constantly shoveling food into their mouths is optimal for health so they reject any science showing that fasting is beneficial.
Sure, but as long as you are healthy, I wouldn’t have thought that most doctors are going to tell you fasting for a couple days is a bad idea. I know of a few people who have done 3-day or longer fasts, and have consulted with a doctor before doing it, and, as far as I know, it’s never been a major issue.
List it.
Doctors won’t stop you from doing something useless if you really want to, be it fasting, snowboarding, scuba diving, or sleeping standing up against a wall. There’s a long ways from “You’re healthy enough to do that[ stupid thing], so go ahead” and “I medically recommend this process to improve your health.”
99 doctors out of 100 would probably disrecommend potentially injurious and lethal sports if they thought it was their place to do so. But they limit their input to judging whether or not you are unsafely unable to do it.
But that’s not what I’m responding to. I’m responding to “Fine, just don’t try to tell me you got an MD to sign off on these fasts of yours.” I suspect most MDs would sign off on a fast of a couple of days as long as you check out okay. I didn’t say they would medically recommend it or anything–I’m not even sure where that came from.
By “fast” we mean three or more days in a row without food, right?
Dozens out of 10s of 1000s MDs in the country is not a reassuring number.
I call.
“Several” means more than two, right?
Kindly provide websites for three of them and I will follow up.
No. Even a 24º fast has benefits, if combined with resistance training. Coffee, tea are allowed and lots of water.
http://spartantraining-blogg.se/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Eat-Stop-Eat.pdf
http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/guide/fasting
SerafinaP, quoting other blogs as a cite is about as meaningless as the term can get. It’s used in political arguments all the time - one blog, quoting another as proof, quoting another, and around until it’s a closed loop. A web site is bad enough, since it does take some small hurdle to get information there, but ANYONE can write a blog post and put anything in it they like.
The WebMD reference is a nice misdirection, too. The entry says basically “Beats us; bon nonappetit but don’t overdo it.”
I decided to google “AMA position on fasting.” This was the first hit:
Occasional fasting may have cardiovascular benefits
Note the article does not cite the AMA, it cites a paper presented to the American Heart Association in 2007.
Hopefully someone here will be able to locate something much more authoritative. There should be something
out there, what with anexoria being a significantly widespread eating disorder.
(from link):
I find hard to credit the cite’s suggestion that a mere once-a-month fast could have a noticeable effect
in medical outcomes within a population which neither drinks or smokes, and which also promotes regular exercise.
Yes, we do mean three or more days, at least Clothahump (in OP) and al27052 (post #s 6 & 16) mean so.
I myself (post #5) raised the unsourced possibility that one-day on one-day-off-fasting as practiced in Okinawa might be healthy.
If you want to eat junk food 3 times a day for the rest of your life, feel free. I honestly don’t give fuck one about your health, or, for that matter, the health of anyone on this message board.
Ah. So we fast while thinking correct thoughts about the state of so-called modern medicine, or we all die from pizza and booze poisoning.
I can’t imagine why I thought there were more choices than that.
Please re-read my above post.
The one that concedes there’s absolutely no medical justification for the supposed benefits of fasting, so everyone can just take a big serving of woo on the topic or fuck off?
No, the one where I don’t care about your health. If you want to read about fasting, there are books available. Plenty have woo, some do not. I’m not in the mood to deal with a hostile audience. A neutral one, sure. You’re hostile, though.
I’m not saying it’s for everyone. People with severe health problems, blood sugar problems, etc.. should usually not fast.
If you really are interested in the benefits, Google “calorie restriction”. There’s actually lots of studies on that subject.
The reality is that, after millions of years of evolution, during which the occasional day or two of no food would happen, we, like most creatures, are designed to be able to weather such things without damage. In addition, I, as well as dozens of other people I know IRL and online, have noticed a lot of health problems disappearing temporarily while fasting.
That’s why I don’t push 3+ day fasts as a solution. the problems come back as soon as you start eating again. It’s fine if you just want some temporary relief, but longer fasts aren’t compatible with a normal lifestyle, and can be overdone. 24-36 hour fasts can be done on a weekly basis with no harm, in many cases.
In fact, the health and longevity improvements that come from calorie restriction are probably easier to get through once-weekly fasting, than through simply eating a little less at every meal. It’s just simpler for the average person to follow.
I get hostile when defenders of a topic refuse to point to valid cites for their claims, try to substitute misdirection and anecdotal evidence, keep changing the subject and then claim they don’t want to talk about it with any but the faithful (or “neutral” aka “gullible.”)
No one here has argued against healthy diets (especially healthier than most people eat). That’s not a justification for or proof of benefits for fasting.
And now you’ve changed the subject again: “calorie restriction” is not fasting. There are indeed studies on various types of restricted diets, including restrictions on total calories, that show a variety of results.
If there are any studies, run by a recognized authority under acceptable research methodology, that show positive benefits for fasting, please do post them. Or at least stop dismissing the call for such reasonable proof and substituting other topics for your answers.
Wasnt a cite. Just information for someone to form their own opinion of fasting. 