Really it's just not worth even reading whatever the popular press has to say about a particular strand of research, especially when lines like "regenerate the entire immune system" are thrown around. No, no, no. Not what is happening: read the paper or even just the publicity materials. It is a very specific mechanism involving specific cell populations.
This is of interest to me primarily because it draws a comparatively sharp line in the sand between the occurrence of a beneficial immune system behavior that happens after three days of fasting but not prior to that point. There are not too many other items I can think of in connection with fasting or calorie restriction that have this discrete on/off behavior. It would be interesting to repeat this in healthy volunteers rather than cancer patients.
> Really it's just not worth even reading whatever the popular press has to say about a particular strand of research, especially when lines like "regenerate the entire immune system" are thrown around.
"Boffins, are you having trouble communicating the fruits of your labour to a wider audience?
Have you spent five thankless years going through stool samples in an attempt to find new treatments for giardiasis only to have your work written up as a single paragraph on page 34 of the Rochdale Observer?
Well, worry no more. Drawing on decades of journalistic experience, the Behind the Headlines team has come up with the definitive guide to getting your work featured prominently on News at Ten. Simply follow the 10 tips below and before you know it you’ll be talking p-values with Phil and Holly on ITV's This Morning."
---
This reads like a Register article after Lewis Page has forgotten to take his pills again.
The study is from august 2014, and in it's short literature review it doesn't mention any prior research regarding fasting allergy.
2/http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14519913 - weekly 1-day fasting decreased symptoms in a single female suffering from skin allergies.there's also some previous research talking about such effects in mice
I do not think the manner in which you've apportioned blame is correct. The article is less technical than the press release yes, but the core of both remains the same. They both talk about fasting leading to a depletion of white blood cells, triggering "stem cell-based regeneration" of new immune cells and how this may prove useful when treating cancer patients.
The main difference in the two is that the press release does not use the word 'entire' in its headline and the regeneration aspect was only specified for mice. But, and this is important, the press release does not make particularly clear whether the regenerative aspect was also looked for in humans (was it? the quote makes it seem so). I do not blame the likely time starved writer for not bothering with nuance if the press release itself doesn't take the time to be clear. The news article is also better for its attempt at sampling more skeptical views, most 'reporting' does not go that far.
A lot of (most?) science reporting is just regurgitating press releases, if science reporting is poor then press releases can explain the bulk of that shoddy reporting. The game of telephone aspect of paper to blogs can't be avoided so it pays to take a much more sober approach when writing press releases:
40% (95% confidence interval 33% to 46%) of the press releases contained exaggerated advice, 33% (26% to 40%) contained exaggerated causal claims, and 36% (28% to 46%) contained exaggerated inference to humans from animal research. When press releases contained such exaggeration, 58% (95% confidence interval 48% to 68%), 81% (70% to 93%), and 86% (77% to 95%) of news stories, respectively, contained similar exaggeration, compared with exaggeration rates of 17% (10% to 24%), 18% (9% to 27%), and 10% (0% to 19%) in news when the press releases were not exaggerated
Daily Telegraph is on it's last legs. It's going to die soon (thank god). Surprised to see articles posted here from it. Most of the reddit UK sites don't bother with them.
Eating right amount of food that your body really needs at all times is best than eating too much some times and fasting at other times. Stability of food intake insures stability of mind and a stable, calm mind results in stable body.
Then there're people who have overcome hunger [0]. But this cannot be achieved through fasting but through practice of Yoga.
"Prahlad Jani, also known as "Mataji", (born Chunriwala Mataji, 13 August 1929) is an Indian sadhu. He claims to have lived without food and water since 1940, and says that the goddess Amba sustains him.
Two observational studies of Jani have been conducted, one in 2003 and one in 2010, both involving Sudhir Shah, a neurologist at the Sterling Hospitals in Ahmedabad, India, who had studied people claiming to have exceptional spiritual abilities, including other fasters such as Hira Ratan Manek. In both cases the investigators confirmed Jani's ability to survive healthily without food and water during the testing periods, although neither study was submitted to a scientific journal.
"
I recognize this as completely empirical evidence, so take it as that.
I am a Mormon. As part of our religious observance, we fast for 2 meals on the first Sunday of every month. Also, I have fasted for the entire duration of the Muslim month of Ramadan twice now.
For Mormons, food and drink is abstained starting Saturday night after dinner until Sunday night's dinner. By the time dinner rolls around Sunday night, I am pretty weak. However, I have noticed that when I fast that Sunday, the following week, my system seems to clean itself out. I feel more alert, and energy seems to peak for a prolonged duration that first week.
While participating in Ramadan, food and drink is abstained from dawn to sunset for each day during the month. This usually means packing in the necessary proteins and carbohydrates for slow breakdown in the morning, and a filler at night. Both times, I shed about 10-15 pounds.
Ramadan was much more difficult for me to participate in, because I need to remain alert and active while at work. I can maintain that needed level until early in the afternoon, when I start to slow down. By the time my shift is over, I'm really not very productive. However, right about the time I am getting off of my shift, I notice that my hunger pains disappear, even though I'm still weak.
While I can't say I notice the increased energy or alertness at the end of the Ramadan, shedding the weight was a positive bonus, although it was not intended.
In both cases, Mormon fasting and participating in Ramadan, I can say that I have noticed personal health benefits, whether it is increased energy, or losing weight. Others I have talked to have noticed the same thing, both Mormons and Muslims alike.
So, it doesn't surprise me that there will be immune system benefits as well.
I am not Muslim, but I was born and raised in a Muslim country, and almost all my friends are Muslim. As you note, in the month of Ramadan, Muslims fast from dawn to dusk. Right before dawn, they eat seheri, and after dusk, they eat iftaar. During the month of Ramadan, no one seems to lose any weight, mainly because everyone seems to overcompensate during iftaar. Where I come from iftaar food is much oilier and richer than the food people usually eat, and also people tend to eat much more during iftaar than they would otherwise. My friends all regularly report gaining weight at the end of Ramadan. This is probably a cultural thing in my country of origin, but from what I have heard, things are same in other Muslim countries.
p.s. Do you mean that your evidence is anecdotal as opposed to empirical?
Yes, unfortunately in many Arab/Asian countries people over-indulge at Iftar time. It seems less of an issue for "converts" of different origins = more of a cultural thing, as Muhammad -saws- encouraged people to eat and drink moderately, and certainly not over-indulge in a month like Ramadan.
Some people, including me, avoid this though. When I was obese (for different reasons), I used to lose 3 or 4 kilograms each Ramadan, but failed to sustain that once the month was over because of my previously terrible lifestyle. My mother also gets leaner during Ramadan because she prepares her own healthy Iftar (mostly Harira, a Moroccan soup, some figs, whole-grains bread and other "sane" alternatives to oily/sugary food)
I'm a Mormon, too, and just wanted to point out a couple of things:
> we fast for 2 meals on the first Sunday of every month.
Not everyone does (pregnant or nursing women, or the sick, for example (edit: or people who just don't wanna)), and not everyone fasts for that period of time. Some people in different roles in the church (what non-Mormons might call a prophetic / visionary role) are encouraged to fast more often.
> For Mormons, food and drink is abstained starting Saturday night after dinner until Sunday night's dinner.
Many will frequently shift their fasting times. I do. Just posting this because I often talk to people who tell me exactly what I believe, because they read it online.
> In both cases, Mormon fasting and participating in Ramadan, I can say that I have noticed personal health benefits
I'm just another anecdote, but I have noticed no personal health benefits. What I would call thinking or meditation benefits, perhaps. I have frequently felt relief that while I may have overeaten the day before a fast, my belt will usually fit nicely on the following fast day. ;)
> Not everyone does (pregnant or nursing women, or the sick, for example), and not everyone fasts for that period of time. Some people in different roles in the church (what non-Mormons might call a prophetic / visionary role) are encouraged to fast more often.
Indeed. I wanted to put that in my initial comment, and forgot. If you are sick, pregnant, or there are other health concerns, or doctor's orders to prevent you from fasting, then you don't.
Also, you are encouraged to fast more frequently for spiritual matters indeed.
Can you separate belief from labelling someone prohpetic/visionary? I label a dog a dog because I believe it's a dog. I don't call a cat a dog with plenty of skepticism. I'm not going to give anyone the label of prophetic/visionary, even with plenty of skepticism. As a non-mormon I consider the prophetic/visionary concept to be fiction, and won't use it on anyone because I don't consider it possible - skepticism doesn't even begin to enter the equation - and labelling someone as something I consider them not to be would be odd. I might just as well label them president.
Sure you can. To give an example outside of Mormonism, you can say that the Oracle at Delphi had a prophetic / visionary role within ancient Greek culture, without having to believe in the Oracle's prophetic visions.
Sometimes we are labeled. You may label yourself Harvard graduate as much as you want but if Harvard says you aren't then you aren't. You may call yourself a Catholic but if thevCatholic Church says you aren't, you simply aren't.
Mormons claim Christianity and espouse some Christian principals (i.e. blood atonement for sins of the world), although many of their beliefs (i.e. God is an evolved man and through adherence to Mormon doctrine men can become Gods after death) put them well outside the realm of what is considered mainstream Christianity.
I'm not sure these additional beliefs necessarily disqualify them as "Christian" though as they do appear to have retained most of the fundamental basics.....
I suppose it depends on ones definition of Christian. No doubt plenty of "Christian" denominations consider that others aren't.
"In truth, there was only one Christian, and he died on the Cross"
-Nietzsche
The "standard" beliefs of Christianity are expressed in the Nicene creed[1][2]. Even recent evangelical churches believe the things listed there, although they probably don't recite the creed itself.
Most mainstream Christians don't consider Mormons as Christians because they have added to the Bible, which is considered a heresy.
[2] the differences between the two creeds listed there are basically what split the Orthodox church from the Western church and indirectly led to the fall of Constantinople. So some people consider them fairly important, but others don't.
I agree with you. Many groups would claim another group isn't Christian, especially as the definition of "Christian" has shifted and changed throughout the years. A good article outlining some main points is here - https://www.lds.org/topics/christians?lang=eng. (for the record I am a Mormon, and a Christian. :)
The atonement was (supposedly) because of God's own incarnation as Christ, our of love, not because of some blood offering to God (i.e. the crucifixion, which was not even meant as such, anyway).
I realize modern religion has tried to blunt the concept (it's all about love etc)... but blood atonement figures very prominently in the doctrine presented in the bible...
Romans3:25, Hebrews9:22, Rev1:5 for instance. There are plenty more. Very prominent concept. Which is why up until recently there was plenty of talk about being "washed in the blood" in Christian churches.
(I believe the manifest brutal cruelty and outright ridiculousness of the concept was one of the primary things leading to my rejection of Christianity at a very early age.... no offense to anyone's particular faith... just my point of view)
I think the brutality must have been intentional. To the Romans, a "good death" was quick and painless. For example, if you were a citizen of Rome, then even if you were sentenced to death, you were guaranteed a beheading instead of something slower. To the Greeks, keeping the body intact was very important. That's why they gave Socrates hemlock to drink; even though it must have been agonizing, it was respectful because it maintained the integrity of his body. Jesus' death mixed the worst kind of death to both Greeks and Romans, and also fit in the curse that the Jews had against anyone who died hanging on a tree. This offensiveness is called out explicitly in 1 Corinthians 1 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+1...
I think you have it backwards. The 'brutal cruelty and outright ridiculousness' of blood sacrifice is the whole point of Christianity. I realise Judaism has changed a lot, but in Jesus' time it was an unforgiving system. The death of Jesus was supposed to supplant all other kinds of sacrifice, and bring in a new system whereby you didn't need to atone for sins any more - you simply had to ask for forgiveness. When you discuss OT scriptures you aren't talking about Christianity.
> bring in a new system whereby you didn't need to atone for sins any more
I believe the Biblical narrative describing the significance of Jesus' sacrifice was about past sins, that which humans bore without actually committing. I do not believe the death of Jesus in any way suggests, in Christian folklore, that you don't need to atone for sins.
FWIW, I think the Catholic Church (which didn't exist until hundreds of years after the whole Jesus thing) considers things like rosary prayers as atonement.
The three verses cited on blood atonement are from the NT.
I realize the idea is that the blood of Jesus was supposed to end blood atonement and usher in a new era. However, I never thought this idea was reasonable, never identified with a God who would set such a system up, and never felt that this idea at the core of a religion would ultimately lead to positive outcomes or really much more than continued barbarism and cruelty, but I'm not going to argue with your faith.
I just think Jesus was more or less successfully trying to fix all of the problems he saw with the religion he was born into. The OT God is quite evil (or at least does/allows/commands evil things). A God who doesn't require sacrifice, forgives sins as they are confessed and eschews violence is quite a step up.
Given what he had to work with I think he did pretty well.
Unless Muslims believe in Jesus as deity (and salvation through Christ's atonement) as Mormons do, that seems an unlikely statement.
Mormons do get drawn outside of Christianity by some christians for a variety of reasons (non-trinitarian, open canon, cosmological background quasi-polytheism), and some people have suggested classifying the faith as another Abrahamic one as a means of sidestepping that discussion, which may be where one could get the idea that the comparison to Muslims is a good one. But if Mormons are outside mainstream Christianity, it's only marginally so.
The point I was making is that both Islam and Mormonism are based on Christianity and so share many common beliefs, but they both extend on this base. Personally I find Mormonism a fascinating religion, but I do think it has moved past being just another branch of Christianity.
No. Muslims believe only parts of the Christian bible are divine. Mormons believe all parts of both the old and the new testament are divine, and addition believe in a third book (that I've only read the intro to) which has additional tales of Jesus Christ and companions.
They are as Christian as catholics are, perhaps even more so as in my opinion they follow his ideology a whole lot better.
I have Crohn's disease, have therefore been exposed to numerous doubtful stories about 'boosting the immune' system. With my illness, a 'boost' would actually make me sicker, whereas I find that fasting for a couple of days results in improvement of symptoms for me. Why? Obviously because my digestive system becomes empty, and there is less irritation of damaged intestinal lining. Going by this study, an increased production of white blood cells should make me sicker. My anecdotal evidence does not support their findings.
Long story short - if their claims are true they will be able to be reproduced by other researchers. Until then, colour me sceptical.
If your overactive immune system results in worsening Crohn's symptoms, then fasting would improve your symptoms (by reducing the immune system temporarily + the benefit of no irritants in the digestive system). When the immune system returns to a "normal" (or normal-for-you) state afterwards, you also have irritants back in your digestive system, making it impossible to separate.
The question is: do your Crohn's symptoms improve concurrently with the duration of the fast, extend beyond it, or track as expected with the presence of food in your digestive system?
I guess where I'm going is that there may be two variables at play that can't be easily separated in the case of Crohn's.
I think boost is the pop journalism lingo. Not what the study was measuring. The study mentions its positive effect on eczema, another autoimmune condition like Crohn's. My personal anecdotal evidence has to do with adult acne and hives. Something I suffer with on a daily basis. Flair ups for both stop when I go on calorie restricted diets or fast.
Yes, I believe that is what happens. On the other hand, my symptoms often seem to improve if I eat pizza for each meal for 24hrs (order one night, consume left overs for the next day). :)
Crohn's is one illness that attracts more than it's fair share of woo and 'special diets' and so on. As a result I've become fairly sceptical of any one-off scientific papers that make certain claims, whether they are related to auto-immune diseases or not.
Your skepticism is probably good, but fasting (and its semi-related brother, caloric restriction) has been the subject of scientific investigation for a long time, so 'one-off' hardly captures the essence of it.
So.. per this article, shouldn't Mormons and Muslims have stronger immune systems?
I wonder if they do. Or are otherwise are more healthy because of this practice. I would be a bit surprised if this were the case, although I could be wrong.
I do notice Utah is in top 10 US states for life expectancy (no tobacco might be another reason), but it is not in the top 5. So I'm guessing fasting (and/or a religious preference) may not really produce amazing life extending benefits after all.
Edit: Although fasting does have a long history in religious tradition, it is often associated with some not-so-savory movements as well....
Any kind of stress will trigger an increase in immune system activity and cell regeneration. Fasting is one way to do it, working out until you're exhausted is another. A balance between the two is probably best for training your body to be strong.
I am not religious or anything, but I think some of the religious rules come from their leaders realizing that making them "rules from God" would benefit their people and give a better chance of survival:
- kosher rules are pretty much there to prevent people from preparing food in unsanitary ways or eating potentially dangerous stuff (eating pork will kill you by worms growing in your gut)
- the 10 commandments are basic community rules to ensure they don't end up fighting and killing each other, helping the race to survive.
- fasting on Ramadan was probably created by a religious leader who felt better after doing it himself and though it to be a good idea for everybody else to do it.
>> - fasting on Ramadan was probably created by a religious leader who felt better after doing it himself and though it to be a good idea for everybody else to do it.
That religious leader would be Muhammad.
That's one way to see things and how I explain part of my belief in Islam to non-religious people: Worst case scenario, I'm just doing things that I believe are pretty smart (fasting, praying, helping the poor and oprhan, keeping a strong sense of family, etc.); best-case scenario it's actually God that told us to do those things. Actually, it's mainly because I believe all those recommendations are pretty darn smart and coherent that I believe it might well be God's message. (Muhammad was an illiterate shepherd after all, hardly who you'd expected to come with these things)
you're supposed to 'believe' to benefit from the best case scenario dude :) just rationalizing about it is not supposed to be enough...
and additionally, fasting was around before it was introduced in islam; check it's versions in judaism, christianity... actually, it was also around before that. people used to fast during equinoxes for a very long time for all sorts of different ceremonies...
Well, Islam does recognize the other prophets and their religions (so that includes Judaism and Christianity). And I don't agree with the fact that "it was around even before that", as people didn't fast regularly and in the same fashion as jews/christians/muslims do.
And IMHO, belief doesn't have to be totally separate from reasoning. We're human beings, our beliefs are definitely influenced by what our reason (among other stimuli) dictates us.
I started my comment by saying that this is one way to see religions, a way that I sometime present to curious non-religious friends. There's also a more philosophical (and comprehensive) way to see them that I can discuss with people that are just more "into that". And of course, as a religious person, I do believe in God but that doesn't mean that it needs to be a blind belief without any reasoning.
Correct , there are many other religious groups that fast - Hindus, Jains, Christians etc. I've found that fasting practices among Coptic Christians is more intense/severe than any other religion I have seen (so far at least)
Why does insecurity come into play? Couldn't there be other reasons for God being adamant about what a person believes (i.e., worships)? What if man's nature really is best nurtured by and finds its completion in (his telos) the Being called God?
If your kids insist on eating cotton candy (which works against their health) amid a veritable feast (that is delightful and nutritious), wouldn't your ire be justified?
Disclaimer: This is my personal belief, it seems it seems to offended some passionate dissenters. I understand, I've been there before too.
God is often depicted as moody and chronically concerned with what we think of him. I think that's a ridiculous projection of our own human insecurities.
If a creator like God existed, he would be billions of orders of magnitude more intelligent than us. Why would he care if we were skeptical? Humans are arrogant and we project our own humanness onto everything. I doubt God, if he existed, would stop loving me even if I hated him. He would be above all that, in my view.
If there is a creator or God, I personally believe he doesn't care if we believe in him. He's too intelligent and mature for that to ever matter to him
Side note edit: It has always been interesting to me that moderate agnosticism is always the most drowned out religious view. I would be better off as a militant atheist or familiar, friendly theist if I cared about internet points.
I looked hard and can't find the exact verse, but there's a specific verse in the Quran that basically says the same thing:
If all of humanity gathered to believe, it wouldn't add Him anything. And if all of humanity gathered to disbelieve, it wouldn't remove anything from Him.
People still have this latent idea of God as an old bearded guy (or any variation of that myth) "interacting" with the world (via spells and miracles).
Consider God as not a being but the infinite consciousness that pervades every particle/subparticle. Considering God as a finite (great) being who sits somewhere high in the space and runs the show on Earth is limiting the supreme being.
Upanishads states that God exists in each one of us as the pure consciousness that experiences the three states – waking, dreaming and sleeping. The mind with ego (I-ness) is the veil that has made us blind to experience this consciousness (experiencing consciousness by consciousness is possible as stated by wise men but describing that experience in words isn't possible because words are objects of mind and consciousness is beyond mind.)
"God is often depicted as moody and overly worried about what we think of him."
Moodiness? I can give you human examples of this trait; but what specifically do you have in mind about God that portrays Him as such? This way I know we are communicating about the same thing.
"Overly worried" - I know of no text in all of the Bible that portrays God as anxious about anything. Maybe you mean to say "chronically concerned with" what people think?
The categories of love and hate as you are discussing seem to require a little work. Whenever we see God's unchanging love discussed, at least Scripturally, to what does it refer? And if God chose not to love, would that make Him less than divine somehow?
I'm asking these questions (not attacking! I value your response!) because whenever we go into the "my personal belief is..." it seems prudent to examine whether such beliefs have rational warrant, or are they simply another way of wishing the world worked that way?
"Humans are arrogant and we project our own humanness onto everything" -- that is utterly true. Thank you for acknowledging it. But could it be you are projecting your own preferences of what God would be like if He existed? How do you escape this human flaw while the rest of us can't or won't?
By the way, if God turns out to be real and He is preeminently concerned with what you think about Him, what grounds would have to object to His preoccupation with making you see how ultimate and satisfying He is?
> Moodiness? I can give you human examples of this trait; but what specifically do you have in mind about God that portrays Him as such? This way I know we are communicating about the same thing.
God throws a few temper tantrums in the Old Testament. Either way the Christian God is not the God I might believe in. I sometimes believe in a creator who, for the purposes of familiarity, I call God.
> "Overly worried" - I know of no text in all of the Bible that portrays God as anxious about anything. Maybe you mean to say "chronically concerned with" what people think?
Yeah, that is what I meant. I will change that, thanks.
> The categories of love and hate as you are discussing seem to require a little work. Whenever we see God's unchanging love discussed, at least Scripturally, to what does it refer? And if God chose not to love, would that make Him less than divine somehow?
I don't personally believe the scriptures are anything but contradictory pseudo-history combined with fiction, so I cannot answer your question.
> "Humans are arrogant and we project our own humanness onto everything" -- that is utterly true. Thank you for acknowledging it. But could it be you are projecting your own preferences of what God would be like if He existed? How do you escape this human flaw while the rest of us can't or won't?
Of course, I am. I can only maybe accept that there was a creator. Everything else is just pure speculation. I'd like to think that this creator is unfathomable to mankind. That being said, I often doubt that this creator exists at all.
> By the way, if God turns out to be real and He is preeminently concerned with what you think about Him, what grounds would have to object to His preoccupation with making you see how ultimate and satisfying He is?
Well if he was right in front of me I would obviously admit I was wrong. If he cares as much as you say I'm sure he'd be pretty upset at me. At that point he would either have to understand where I was coming from, or send me to hell.
"God throws a few temper tantrums in the Old Testament."
Clearly there are descriptions of God's kindled wrath that is admittedly frightful and overwhelming. Do these eruptions of anger and fury and wrath somehow militate against a standard above or outside God Himself? What's the origin of this standard? How does it (or can it?) apply to Him? Objections, it seems, are either rooted in taste ("I prefer this because of something about my personal predilections.") or in an understanding of the world as it is or ought to be ("Reason clearly shows that...")
"Either way the Christian God is not the God I might believe in." You very well might not believe in such a God. But what psychology is at work here? I can't read your mind, but if you indeed resist such a notion of a God who can erupt in wrath or even treasure up wrath against anyone who rejects Him, would this rejection be a product of mere taste? Should things of ultimate importance be considered on something as (I would consider) fickle as taste?
My point of bringing up the idea of God's love in the context of the Bible wasn't meant to say you accepted the text as true or inspired, only that if we are objecting to the historical Christian concept of God, we should at least try to deal with the source of its self-understanding since the defects of Christianity stems either from its faithfulness to its sources or its deviation from its sources.
"I can only maybe accept that there was a creator." -- Happy to hear you are not out and out closed out to the idea of a Creator. "Everything else is just pure speculation," which is an interesting claim in itself, but it seems to be an implicit admission that the hard work of metaphysics is an indispensable part of our dialogue. Your rejection of Christian scripture may be warranted, but I'd be curious as to how you concluded it is a "contradictory pseudo-history combined with fiction." Is this based on your own reading? You don't owe me an explanation, but so much seems to hang on this point. Even if it were demonstrably not a hodge-podge mess of history, fiction, poetry, and teaching, would that even sway your seeming pre-commitment to the words you wrote: "Either way the Christian God is not the God I might believe in?"
"Well if he was right in front of me I would obviously admit I was wrong." -- that seems to be the a realistic response. Scripture certainly paints that picture.
"If he cares as much as you say I'm sure he'd be pretty upset at me. At that point he would either have to understand where I was coming from, or send me to hell." -- An infinitely wise God would clearly understand your own mind on this. The ultimate question is whether hell is ever justified even in the case of those who claim a degree of ignorance? That's another discussion, but I am glad you are thinking about it at least hypothetically.
"Either way, I'm willing to take that risk." -- Blaise Pascal would love to discuss with you what constitutes a rational risk on this count. Risk-taking is a good thing, wouldn't you agree, if it is eminently grounded in reason?
Thank you so much for this exchange. I don't have all the answers, but like you I am happy to hang my hat on anything that has the ring of truth. I am openly a traditional, classical Christian, but I'm always willing to dialogue and calibrate my beliefs in the light of the Truth, the Good, and the Beautiful.
for the sake of argument let's assume there is a God. and let's say He was better than all the things He created. better than that awesome sunset that you saw that took your breath away; better than that favorite meal you love -- you know the one. love is giving the object of your love the best... the best you've got. what if God giving Himself was Love defined?
It certainly is reasonable to look for an archetype for what we consider transcendent acts and qualities. Even the most ardent atheist generally is moved by acts of mercy, heroics, sacrifice, and unmerited love.
His chosen framework cannot properly and consistently account for these things, perhaps the best he can do is proffer a narrative about bio-chemical impulses and evolutionary advantage -- but the transcendent "feel" at the end of the day seems no more than an illusion of nature.
That's a bad assumption to start with because there is no evidence of such a thing. "just for the sake of argument, let's assume there are invisible horses everywhere. (followed by explanation of how these horses are responsible for love)"
Your epistemology and categories are already flawed, as if there's an analogy between a thing (like a horse) and the Ground of Being (classically called "God"). God in classical theism is not a "thing" among things. If you think classical theism posits deity the same way people posit horses, of course you'll want "evidence" that is empirical.
So wouldn't it be helpful, for the sake of the thought experiment proposed by shawndumas, to at least see where his reasoning leads? The premise ("There is a God") might not be true, but an a priori exclusion of such a being seems no more based on logic than the counter claim. What is helpful, I think, is if by looking through those lenses we see if God gives the world more explanatory power than by not looking through those lenses.
>God in classical theism is not a "thing" among things.
Neither is an invisible horse. These all fall under the category of things that there is no physical evidence for.
>So wouldn't it be helpful, for the sake of the thought experiment proposed by shawndumas, to at least see where his reasoning leads?
No, because his entire premise is based on the existence of something that follows no logic or physical laws. Something that violates the laws of logic cannot be reasoned about.
a valid argument is valid apart from the truth of its premises [1]. I am perfectly happy to agree that an argument's construction is formally valid and still deny it's conclusion.
all sound arguments are valid but not all valid arguments are sound.
I never said it was. I said it had a bad assumption, which makes the whole thing entirely pointless and self-serving.
Entering a debate where you make your arguments using the form "Assume I am right about the thing we are debating. Now here are all of the logical conclusions of that." is completely worthless because nobody cares about the logical conclusions when the argument is about the part you are taking under assumption.
The original post was, "If God exists, I doubt he cares if we believe in him or not. I like to believe he would not be that insecure."
My response was addressing the part about insecurity. You are objecting to the original poster's thought experiment -- "If God exists" -- which I was allowing for the sake of argument.
So you are objecting to my continuation: Is this what you are intending to do?
He was indeed a merchant, and later worked as Khadija's accountant (before he married her) when he received the revelation.
But he was a shepherd during his youth and was illiterate (even when he received the revelation and was a merchant/accountant, this is a period where a lot is based on oral communication).
Not sure about that "became a warrior" part (although he was what you could call a political leader, which included -in that time- participating in wars)
Is there any study comparing observant Mormons vs. a similar population showing better health?
Likewise, is there any study comparing observant Muslims vs. a similar population showing better health?
It would be interesting to see either. I'm skeptical (because I feel like every religion claims that their particular diet has health benefits) but open to seeing a study.
active Mormons from age 25 (Anderson, 1999). Males had a life expectancy of 84.1 years, which was 9.8 years greater than that of 1989–1991 U.S. white males. Females had a life expectancy of 86.1 years, which was 5.6 years greater than that of 1989–1991 U.S. white females
I fasted once for three days in university. Only water. Bumped into a friend who raved about it and so I tried it out. It was a faith thing.
First day was not bad.
Second day was horrible. That day just happened to be the day when all these university student associations decided to put on a whole bunch of events that had food. The First Nations Student Association served roasted corn, salmon, and bannock. Another club had pizza. An info session for overseas exchange studies had sushi, cookies, veg and dip, and so on. On it went. It sucked. My friend had allowed himself one cup of fruit juice during his three days, so I allowed myself one cup at the exchange info session. Dang, I needed a lot of willpower that day.
Third day was fine, it felt like I was actually starting to adjust to lack of food. But knew eventually I had to eat so fourth day I ate.
I try it every now and then. Honestly, if I can get over the hump of those big hunger pangs, it gets easier. Part of it may be because I eat too much in general though. Hehe.
I was doing two day fasts ever other week or so for a while. The first time, it was really hard - I felt sick to my stomach, weak, and almost gave up. After that time though, once I realized that no it's not going to kill me, got much easier and I actually started to enjoy the relaxation it brought.
Thought I would weigh in as I have a personal interest and history with fasting.
I once fasted for 25 days on nothing but water. I biked to class and work daily during the fast. After a couple days, hunger cravings disappeared. After two weeks I began to gain a mental clarity that I had not encountered before. I would get a head rush when I stood up too quickly after about 15'r days, but this was remedied by taking a deep breath beforehand. You begin to see and think of things differently when you find that you have given up an activity like eating that is so fundamental to human existence. I lost about 30 pounds (196-166) but almost immediately gained 15 back when I started eating again. I still remember how amazing a strawberry tasted the first time I ate after 25 days. I found a new appreciation for all types of foods I had never enjoyed before Infasted. It was a monumental experience in my life.
There are some commenters claiming different things about fasting, but the body is a miraculous thing and it can go quite some time without food. I plan to complete a 40 day fast along the lines of the Pythagoreans, Buddha, Jesus, and the ancient Egyptian Schools.
I do not, however, recommend this for everyone. An average person should have no problems with a prolonged fast, but there are no guarantees that you do not have some dormant medical issue. I went about my fast rather naively with no medical supervision, and though I had no negative consequences, I can not recommend my actions to others for obvious reasons. I am merely sharing my personal experience.
In a more relevant note to the article, I have found that fasting always makes me recover from an illness more quickly. If I have a cold or any other trivial illness I always fast and recover fairly quickly, again N=1. But I did come to the conclusions of this idea after extensive research into the benefits of fasting.
The mental clarity you mention is interesting. Did you by any chance do stuff during that stretch that would give a more objective mental performance -- meaning, was there a quantitative way for you to evaluate your 'mental clarity'?
I ask because I've water-fasted for two days on several occasions, and I've always broken because the mental handicap was just too much, and I've had work to do.[1] In particular, I've found that writing code and writing research papers is almost impossible on day 2.
However, I've wondered if either a) pushing through it, or b) keto-adapting beforehand might prevent the mental slowness. I know a superstar scientist who claims that he thinks better in ketosis, so presumably the mechanism for pushing through it would be to get to the point of keto-adaptation.
[1] Well, that's kind of a copout. I could always do it while on vacation or something. So mental handicap + willpower.
I would say that day 2 is probably the hardest day. Day 3 was when I really started to feel almost normal, I lost cravings for food I mean. The craving and mental occupation of hunger is really distracting the first couple of days. After that you can focus more on your normal tasks without the constant nagging reminder that you are fasting. In fact, after about 12 days someone offered me a cookie at work and I almost took it and started eating it because it just completely skipped my mind that I had been fasting. I finally caught myself right before I started to eat it, but the hunger was so far gone from me that I wasn't mouth-wateringly rabid about eating a cookie, it was just like "sure, I'll take one" without a thought about it. So, I would probably say pushing through to at least day 3 or 4 would be worthwhile. If you steal feel handicapped after those days then it probably isn't for you.
I wish I had done some sort of quantitative test to see if this was beneficial. I was taking 3 summer classes and working 20-30 hours at a pizza place (yes, hand making pizza all day at Shakespeare's Pizza in Columbia, MO while I was fasting.) And I did well in the classes, but I wouldn't say they were the most challenging classes as far as math and science, it was two philosophy classes and one theoretical physics writing class that was a lot more theoretical than practical application and calculation. Perhaps next time I will take some sort of mental performance tests at each week interval and see if there is marked improvement or detriment.
Thanks for the feedback. Your classwork under fast is inspiring, since it sounds like it included some fairly diverse cognitive skills. In my case trying to write a paper was a really emphatic illustration that something weird was going on, since I could do other, simpler tasks without really noticing a difference. But creative, integrative work that required planning and holding multiple things in memory at once was like running into a tree.
The pizzeria thing, on the other hand, doesn't really surprise me. I worked in a pizzeria once, and my experience there (and from talking to other friends in fast food) was that the more time you spend in food prep, the less hungry you are. There might be eating out of impulse, but the hunger triggers seem to go away pretty quick.
I'd encourage you in your final sentiment, though: quantitative performance info on fasting would be really useful, and doesn't seem to exist in the literature. If you ever want to talk about it please PM me.
I did quite the same for 15 days and had many of the same results. Like anything, until you do it you don't really get the magnitude of the results, in my case like yours also monumental.
I drink a lot of coffee; when fasting I remember that I though differently, less hurried, more clear, and wondered what the field of design would be like without stimulants.
>>But I think the most sensible way forward would be to synthesize this effect with drugs.
I'm no naturopath, but something about this attitude really bugs me. I know in context he was cautioning against jumping to conclusions, but if there was a safe, low barrier to entry, non-drug way of achieving an effect, why would you encourage people to take a drug instead?
Fasting for three days is not a safe, low barrier to entry, way. A healthy person with no critical commitments or delicate work can do it safely, but lots of people would not. Note that one side effect observed during the protocol was fainting.
Is there any evidence that fasting for 3 days is not safe or is this just an assumption? As I understand it is perfectly safe for all but the most fragile people.
"Conclusion: Ramadan fasting is associated with transiently impaired insulin sensitivity, compensated for by an increased p3-cell function. However, the pattern of insulin resistance-mediating adipocytokines suggests a potentially beneficial metabolic effect of Ramadan fasting."
"At the age of 74 and already slight of build, Mahatma Gandhi, the famous nonviolent campaigner for India's independence, survived 21 days of total starvation while only allowing himself sips of water. In a 1997 article in the British Medical Journal, Michael Peel, senior medical examiner at the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture, cites well-documented studies reporting survivals of other hunger strikers for 28, 36, 38 and 40 days."
My understanding of nutrition regarding both intermittent and long-term (at least 6-10 days) fasting is that as long as your body can properly regulate insulin levels and you have fat reserves, you're not in danger of health issues from it. That's exactly what fat reserves are for.
Effect of long-term fasting of obese patients on pancreatic exocrine function, gastrointestinal hormones and bicarbonate concentration in plasma (20 days): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6207670
Very low barrier. Once every couple of years (For the 20 or so).
The first two days the first time you do it are a not comfortable. But other than that, it's no big deal - around the beginning of the 3rd day, you just lose your appetite and food is not appealing anymore for a while.
It only seems like insurmountable because, if the discomfort you feel for a few hours of unsatisfied appetite continued similarly (linearly, parabolically, exponentially - whichever way it feels to you), then it would actually have been insurmountable. But that's not the case.
It's like cold showers - a guy on this board, joel_runyon, advocates 40 days of only-cold showers[1] as, if I understand it correctly, part-physical-part-psychological therapy. Regardless of any specific merits, the only possible cost is a slight discomfort - yet it seems insurmountable to some people.
That's not a valid generalization. In this case, negative value of the secondary health hazards, loss of enjoyment, and discomfort experienced during fasting might exceed the cost of the drug treatment.
Well, if that's your logic then un-modeled externalities and other physiological disruptions should be taken into account, which are likely to be much more salient than in the case of simply not eating.
Fasting is, in fact, about the most reasonable and conservative 'treatment' imaginable since it's been in active deployment for the last however-many million years across diverse phyla.
Fasted once for 4.5 days (5 nights) and and blood work done just before breaking the fast.
The fast was purely water based, cold turkey (no gradual caloric reduction).
The first 2 days were a bit hard because I felt hungry, after that I felt no hunger, slept really well, woke up well rested but with tingles in my feet and felt very alert though also calm.
One night I woke up to pee (I drank a lot of water) and I still don't remember what happened but I woke up with my head on the toilet bowl.
The blood work came up all messed up.
Glucose levels were extremely low.
Sedimentation rate extremely high.
Lots of ketones in the urine.
Broke the fast with some fruit juice and had no problems.
I've also engaged in intermittent water fading for about 3 months. All went fine.
Once spent almost 40 hours of total fasting (no water). Do not recommend it, I felt seriously messed up.
i fasted for 14 days on spirulina tablets and water as an office bet to prove its effectiveness and still take it everyday. every now and then i do 3-5 day fast to cleanse my body, but technically i'm still eating food. i have yet to do any blood tests to prove its effectiveness besides my own experiments and what i've read. i also don't recommend people doing a fast for 14 days...maybe 3-5 days at first.
after the first few days without eating normal/cooked food it became easier per say, as cravings went down and your body goes into fast mode, even when consuming raw spirulina. i found weekends to be tough as you tend to go out more, and ads are everywhere for food.
also, after the second day you really start to shed water weight and your caloric intake dips into the negatives, as spirulina has about 10 calories per serving which is about 3g. i took an average about 30-60 tablets a day, roughly 2/3g (4-6 tabs) per doze. you drink a lot of water (which you should be doing anyway) m-f was easier for me as you're busy with work when compared to the weekends.
it was asked, how will we know if i'm honest and actually don't eat? we decided on the honor system and we did the math, loosely. in 14 days i should lose about 14lbs, at 1 pound /day, so i did a weigh in before and after. on the last day i weighed in and i did lose about a pound a day with a total of 14.6 lbs lost and i felt..good?/fine, lost weight, had new perspective at starvation, and food itself. you still should eat more than spirulina, which i did at 9pm that monday...green apples and raw chocolate bars were my choices :)
spirulina (cyanobacteria) gives you insane amounts of energy and contains a boat load of nutrients (rich in vitamin A (beta-carotene), B1, B2, B3, B6, E, and K). it also converts sunlight to protein more efficiently than any other living thing. it has the highest content of protein of any other food source around roughly (65-71%). its ancient food, and one of the important foods of the future. it along with other raw foods (fruits/veggies) IMHO is better for you than any other human made sludge/supplements. you can't beat real food and nature.
yep. the book that started it all for me was called "superfoods" by david wolfe. the book is loaded with great info, specifically the index which has an amazing breakdown regarding specifics i.e: amino acids, vitamins, minerals, etc: https://imgur.com/a/mW9Oj
also, remember cyanobacteria was one of the first organisms to turn the sun for its energy. here is excerpt from Home documentary by Yann Arthus-Bertrand, that mentions cyanobacteria:
However it can't be the only thing you eat. There were some studies about using spirulina on a spacecraft (or sub) for both 100% of oxygen and food. While it was feasible, it was pretty energy intensive and would tend to kill you after a few months. Something about more protein in the blood than your kidneys could filter? Will try to find a link.
i agree and mention that. i just did not want to fast without protein and other essential vitamins hence the idea to try it. i should have documented it more with vids, etc.
edit: wanted to add/clarify that some days i only took half of what i planned..was not hungry. my friend said i need to eat 3000 kcals of it..i said no, as i'm just going to get an athletes dose of it. the bet was to show you could function normal with averages+ doses.
also don't drink it/ add the spirulina powder to a smoothie..the taste is very acquired...its not terrible but easier to swallow tablets.
Dr. Valter Longo, who was an author of this study, was on the Diane Rehm Show in January of 2014 with others discussing the benefits of fasting. All the panelists endorse fasting to some extent but it was a lively discussion that summarizes some his research as well as related research that advocates for shorter fasting periods.
Interesting conflict of interest (edit: potential conflict) with the researcher being the founder of a food supplement marketing company.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valter_Longo
Edit: I was wondering what the fasting + supplement connection was. Here we go:
"L-Nutra's first line of products stems from 15 years of research by Prof. Longo and his team at the USC Longevity Institute, one of the world's leading centers for research on aging and its translation into human interventions that optimize longevity and healthspan. It was largely motivated by the request of many patients who wanted to take advantage of the potential beneficial effects of fasting during cancer treatment but were unable to fast and forego any all meals or and snacks." (Emphasis mine)
For what it's worth Longo has has been working on aging, calorie restriction, and intermittent fasting research for some time. Look back through the history of his papers [1] and you'll see solid work. As I understand it he is presently doing the work needed to package up intermittent fasting into something that can be used as a treatment rigorously enough to keep the FDA happy [2], [3].
If you're interested in this, watch Michael Mosley's BBC program on this from a few years back where he anecdotally had good results trying it himself:
"I stuck to this diet for 5 weeks, during which time I lost nearly a stone and my blood markers, like IGF-1, glucose and cholesterol, improved. If I can sustain that, it will greatly reduce my risk of contracting age-related diseases like cancer and diabetes."
True, we need to be able to reproduce and confirm technically that fasting correctly is good for people. But you cannot simply ignore millenia of anecdotal evidence that people who fast simply are more healthier. I find it odd that it's now considered normal to stuff yourself all the time, when historically before maybe a century ago it was considered totally normal to not eat all the time(involuntarily or otherwise).
What millennia of anecdotal evidence? I've heard claims like that before, but never seen the source of any of these claims. Really? In the past it was common not to eat, voluntarily? That seems hard to believe with how central food is to every culture I've ever been exposed to. In fact you are seen as odd if you choose NOT to partake when others are.
If this is common knowledge to you it is certainly not for me, which is why I do want to see the results of studies like this that have been replicated.
My entire historical perspective on fasting is from religious/spiritual perspective which don't mention anything about health benefits.
> In the past it was common not to eat, voluntarily?
Pretty much every religion of which I'm aware has the concept of fasting, and on every culture people terms to make an attempt to follow their religion's strictures (c.f. all the folds you see running at the gym).
Sure, as you more religions don't tend to mention the physical health benefits, but they certainly believe in the psychological health benefits. Regardless of whether they believe in them or not, such regimens will affect their participants' health for good or for ill.
Really? My understanding of religious fasting was it was a form of devotion. To show how dedicated you were to that cause. Or to show that you could overcome your biological instincts.
In other words to demonstrate fortitude, strength of will, and discipline, and thus become closer to an ideal that is mostly considered non-biological or rather transcend the biological (God/Nirvana/etc). Or to empathize with suffering/deprivation of others.
So, while I guess those could be considered benefits, I don't really see it.
Funny, I'm not religious and from my distanced POV I never took fasting as a sign of devotion, more an old fashioned detox/cleanse with a sense of minimalistic life (which is not far from empathizing with deprivation).
I am not sure what OP had in mind about fasting, but I recall studies done on lab mouse related to this subject. Studies were about increasing average life expectancy. The results were that the only meaningful increase of life span was gained by limiting food ration. I don't think it was fasting, but amount of food consumed does seem to have significant effect. They claimed life expectancy increased up to 30%.
I remember that study. It was the basis of the intermittent fasting/restricted calories movement. Unfortunately they were unable to replicate it when they changed animals (I don't remember if the subsequent study was on primates or humans).
We know very little about pre-historical diets, there are almost as many theories on it as there are current human diets. Just look at any two descriptions of the "paleo diet".
I'm sure though that the tribes/groups that had best access to food were the most successful, so I'd assume that fasting was something to avoid for them, not embrace. I'd be willing to bet that in reality, before the rise of civilization (and expansion to less hospitable climates), that fasting was more uncommon than the general population believes (most modern hunter/gatherer tribes eat pretty well), if food started to get scarce you went and found more. Food isn't really scarce if you live in a good area, and while our species was growing up we lived on very fertile lands.
A lot of things were normal a century ago while being completely unhealthy. Bloodletting has been a common practice for millenia until ~150 years ago, even if it was an useless and even dangerous practice.
anecdotal evidence that people who fast simply are more healthier.
If they are healthier, are they healthier because of fasting or simply from reduced caloric intake? Would someone who ate less (smaller meals, etc) be healthier than someone who fasts?
In caloric reduction research, there is indication that fasting can be similarly effective to caloric reduction, and may be easier to achieve for many people than a sustained calorie reduction (the amount of calorie reduction thought to be required for effectiveness is thought to be quite challenging to live with longterm...leading to feeling hungry pretty much all the time). Feeling really hungry one day a week may be easier than feeling a little hungry 24/7 every day for the rest of your life.
I'm not disagreeing with you. I think there are still plenty of questions unanswered about this issue. But, I've seen enough evidence, from disparate enough peer-reviewed sources, to think fasting is worth integrating into my life.
This is mostly unrelated to the title, but for those of you wondering what the limit of fasting is, an interesting study on a very obese man had him on water and vitamins for over a year (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2495396/pdf/post...).
The 3 meals a day rhetoric has been widespread (some even advocating even more than that), but it seems a bit overblown.
I have been trying intermittent fasting for the past three weeks - finish my dinner by 7 and breakfast the next day at 11 or 12. Initially it was difficult, but you get used to it quite fast. One thing I have noticed is my afternoon drowsiness has completely disappeared. I used to feel extremely lethargic and just couldn't put my mind to anything. Now I'm completely alert and my productivity has increased dramatically.
I wonder if similar benefits can be had by practicing the method of "lean gains" aka "intermittent fasting", or whether this only works with 3 days of fasting, which is a long time to go without food. I'd certainly find it hard to be productive during that extended period.
Everybody is different, and my anecdote should have very little weight attached to it, but ...
I do an 18 hour fast once per week, which is a very modest fast. On the other hand, I have a very, very comprehensive and intense exercise regimen, so my resting metabolic rate is quite high, and 18 hours with zero calories clears my body out very thoroughly.
And I notice it greatly - it feels fantastic. I feel very quick and light on my feet. It's noticeable.
Am I improving my immune system ? Who knows. However, it is definitely less than a 3 day fast, and it definitely improves my health.
I've been eating once a day for the past 3.5 years and I'd read about the supposed immune system benefits. I've not had a cold/flu since then and I used to get 3-4 a year, so I'm sticking with it and I've become used to it anyway.
This is called intermittent fasting (one way to do it), and there is some very interesting research (on mice) that suggests caloric restriction to a few hours a day has positive effects on obesity and diabetes. Science Friday episode with one of the researchers: http://www.sciencefriday.com/segment/12/05/2014/you-are-when...
Another of my kind! I've been eating once a day for about 2 years now.
This is obviously just anecdotal, but for me, I certainly feel more mentally alert during a fasted state; though I wouldn't say I've been sick any more / less than other times in my life.
Friends think I'm quite bizarre for eating this way - but it just seems to work for me.
When do you eat that one meal of the day, and what does it typically consist of?
I've been doing something similar over the last few months - a very light breakfast, a solid lunch, and then no dinner - but for me, doing this was with the purpose of losing weight - which did happen, at the rate of just under 1 kg a week.
I eat dinner only, quite a lot for dinner and I can graze for the rest of the night. I like going to bed with a full stomach. I don't really get hungry during the day, drink plenty of water and exercise at 3:30, then I'm hungry after that. I eat most stuff, but keep pretty low on sugars, starchy stuff and eat more fat than most.
Friends also think it's a bit bizarre, but it works for me too and I'm used to it. Definitely feel more mentally alert - all the time, and don't get the after lunch tiredness anymore.
FWIW, eating once a day is recommended in the "Hacker Diet" book, written by the author of Autocad. The book says multiple (smaller) meals are fine too, but you have to read it yourself, I won't do it justice here.
One big meal at dinner and a bit of grazing, although if I eat enough fat I don't feel like grazing later. I'm not completely militant about it, if someone asks me to meet up for lunch I'll go, but 95% of the time I stick with it. Plus it's nice to only have to make one decision about food a day and you save some $ from not buying lunch each day.
I participated in the eastern orthodox church (Christian) for a few years and was introduced to their fasting (no meat or dairy products, and eating small amounts). First timers are advised to start slowly (omit one thing) and gradually get to full fasting. The typical fasting schedule is to fast on Wednesday and Friday (with a couple of exceptions) of each week. There are also long fasting periods before Easter and Christmas (and 2 or 3 shorter fasting periods).
Initially, it was quite difficult but over time became much easier. Over time I lost some weight (although that was not an objective) and generally began feeling healthier and more energetic.
This sounds like hooey to me. I mean, fasting may trigger some survival/distress mode mechanisms, but do such triggers actually consist better health? All other things being equal, to the the extent that you can experimentally make all the other things equal in this case, would I have a higher overall white blood cell count after fasting than I had before fasting? Does fasting (starving?) weaken my immune system initially? To what extent? Is that extent recovered, and exceeded, by the new WBC production that wouldn't have been triggered otherwise? I'm comparing this, admittedly based on zero evidence, with the flight response. Adrenaline makes me run faster, but it doesn't make me a faster runner. That's how I mean when I say this sounds like hooey. Of course, I could be totally wrong, and I really have no basis to make this claim in the first place.
Once I fasted for 3 days, only drinking water. By day two I was pretty weak, afterwards I recovered pretty quickly. The point being, it shouldn't be to difficult to do if you aren't going to need to be too active.
I've fasted for 2-3 day periods where I was generally as active as I'd normally be, including doing a few demanding 60 and 90 minute yoga classes during that time. The only thing I really noticed was that if I exerted myself above a certain level, such as walking at too fast of a pace, then I'd very quickly feel tired - all it took was reducing my walking pace and I felt fine again; I presume this is related to the different rates of energy being made available.
After seeing this article the first time, I decided to try the 3 day fast as well. I too continued my normal morning 3 mile runs and noticed that if I couldn't push the pace for very long. I'm just an anecdote, but my immune system seems to be stronger this winter. With two little ones who've been sick a couple of times and a wife that had the flu, I've been able to get by with just minimal congestion.
From what I have read, the gut constitutes about 70% of the immune system. And in alternative med circles, it is pretty well known that digestive enzymes in pill form can also be used as antivirals (something I have done with prescription digestive enzymes). The gut, like the respiratory system, is lined with mucus because it needs to manage a complex process of letting in things the body requires for life while screening out things that are dangerous.
So, if the conclusions of this study are at all accurate, perhaps part of the mechanism is that fasting reduces the load on the system for a time, reduces the amount of sorting out which foreign material to use as building blocks and which foreign material to treat as dangerous invaders so it can put resources to other uses.
I hate the fact that this study seems to be tainted with potential conflict of interest as outlined by @themodelplumber.
I wish science could get back to just-being-science and focus on provable, repeatable results sans corporate involvement, as I think if this is really true, it could be a real breakthrough.
I have some experience with fasting, and was always surprised how good I felt after a couple of days, and to be honest the times I was actively living a fasting lifestyle, I do not remember ever getting sick.
Yes yes I know...a big bag of confirmation bias and anecdotal evidence, which is why I hope deeper, hard-science studies will continue.
I read Antifragile + The Black Swan once every year to remind me of this - and everytime I read something I think about confirmation bias and silent evidence. they are not tough concepts, but the human brain isn't really weird to think that way - unfortunately (as talked about in Thinking Fast and Slow also)
Taleb, for all his faults, is really good at calling out people for scientific research that contains conflicts of interest - he has been calling out GMO related stuff for the past two or three months on Twitter, before than he became famous for doing it in Finance
Replies above claim themodelplumber was citing the wrong study -- believing claims of conflict of interest without doing your homework is just as bad as believing studies themselves without doing your homework.
The word "regenerate" has got to be a bit of a stretch. It's not like decades of DNA mutations are going away.
I've done fasts on relatively nothing for over five days. Early on, you get some "empty-stomach intelligence" where your mind is just more alert because of plenty of oxygen (from not digesting) and probably some evolution that favored apes that got observant and driven when hungry as opposed to lazy.
Fasting long enough to get the effects in the paper will use up all your glycogen stocks. Read wiki on starvation for details, but basically you want to have a small supply of starches to keep your skeletal muscle from breaking down to feed your brain. About two days in, without some glucose supply, you will unavoidably slow down. Lethargy will commence when your brain is starving. It is not euphoric. It is the world slipping out of grip without you noticing.
As long as your taking care of your mandatory glucose supply, fasting over three days or more will lead to a common theme in all nutrition and health papers: all processes that break things down for re-use are up-regulated and all processes that consume resources are down-regulated.
It's not difficult to propose that a system composed of mostly brand-new, turned over cells and muscles with all their proteins aligned to the principle stresses is more protein efficient than one resulting from plenty of nutrients floating around like entrepreneurs with too much money. Fasting would be expected to result in general house-cleaning so that protein that's not accomplishing much ends up reallocated to doing something useful.
Some examples of where this shows up in scientific papers is the increased sensitivity to chemotherapy of cancer cells when the patient is fasting. One proposed mechanism was an up-regulation of registration for immune-system induced self-destruction through the normal pathway; a badly functioning protein might go ahead and function sufficiently in the up-regulated pathway.
More obvious benefits from fasting are the same as those of anything where you build up self-discipline and also getting in touch with the difference between hunger and a lack of being full; they are much more distinct after a fast. Cravings for sugar are gone because your hormones for hunger and satiety are all operating properly, as is your pancreas.
My favorite way to get empty is to just drink water and/or coffee (black) or tea. Fluids, no macro-nutrients. Get some glucose from some bread. Get some micro-nutrients from some yogurt and rabbit food. Let the rest slip into the starvation mode. Stress level and blood pressure will decline into a kind of euphoria as long as you don't over-do the calorie starving to the point that you're thinking on muscle protein.
I've done it. All the mechanisms have obvious symptoms. If you are just ketogenic and in starvation, you feel euphoric and completely without variations in energy. If you are beyond starvation and skeletal protein is being converted to glucose, you piss dark yellow and feel like you're on anesthetic. Either way you lose a lot of weight, your energy will regulate much more tightly, and you won't be bothered by hunger, and you'll be drinking coffee as nature intended it instead of some holiday special milk-shake.
It's well-established that reduced calorie diets promote longevity and that the spectrum of metabolic syndrome conditions are associated with all sorts of bad things, so although I'm not a doctor, I don't expect to have any regret about recommending anyone try coffee fasting to put their system through its paces.
> basically you want to have a small supply of starches to keep your skeletal muscle from breaking down to feed your brain
But starvation in a healthy person takes 10-40 days to kick in, with 30 days being way more common than 10. Before that, you're just ketogenic.
Everything I read, and my personal experience, leads me to believe that the only muscle that breaks down is that which is not used (which is compatible with your general description). As long as you keep exercising during the fasting days, there's no reason to resupply your glycogen stores. After about two days, your body will switch to ketones as a fuel source, which will likely alter your body odour and -- if you are not used to it, e.g. the first time you do it, is likely to give you headaches and other flu like symptoms for a couple of days. But no reason for starch intake.
Usually a fast means you can drink non-caloric liquids, water being the preference. There are many different kinds of fasts, and some are less strict than others, but for the most part water is allowed in all of them.
If I can venture a possible explanation of downvotes while noting I always prefer a respectful reply than a downvote for any disagreement.
Every religion since forever has claimed their religious practices are beneficial. Such claims are not science regardless of the religion and, importantly they aren't science even if the claim turns out to be true.
If you have a properly executed study gathering the data correctly and doing a dispassionate analysis on the effects of fasting as practised by Jainism or any other religion that's worth looking at. The easiest person to fool is always yourself and never is it easier than when looking at something about which you feel particularly strongly such as your religious beliefs and practices. Claims from religious devotees (or former devotees) about fasting or magic underwear, or genital mutilation benefits or miseries should be completely disregarded. Evidence properly gathered, analyzed and capable of being falsified about those same things should be taken with the seriousness it deserves. Religious claims might give one an idea about where to look but should but not be mistaken for any kind of rigor in themselves. Or you end up with truly barbaric, unnecessary medical "treatment" that needs to be consigned to horrific sections of history texts where mercifully at least some of it has now been.
Properly done science is how you know if any given claim is true, false or its truth is still yet unknown and possibly still unknowable.
What people should look for is a well preserved meme.
Fasting is a very, very well preserved meme - across broad geography and many different ethnic and religious groups.
That means something. Regardless of whether or not we understand the science of it, or how we feel about "the messenger" (in this case, religious teachings that we may or may not harbor animosity towards), a very well preserved meme is worthy of our attention.
Is it true ? I don't know. It's interesting, though, and is worthy of our attention.
It's important to remember that anecdotal evidence is not scientific in any way. Just because there exists "peoples' wisdom" doesn't mean that this wisdom is correct. This is why science exists in the first place, to explore and explain natural phenomena.
Sometimes science is not a discovery endeavour, sometimes it just 'explains' something that we already 'know'; that knowledge may be the product of accumulated experience, intuition, observation or mere chance. It seems valid then, to highlight an old religious ritual like fasting as evidence that such practice works to improve physical health. Do note that the writer of this comment is an atheist.
He is downvoted because his comment consists of two phrases that are both wrong. First:
"Forget the study", he is basically suggesting we should forego science, human kinds only tool to ascertain and record observable truths about the universe we live in.
"people belonging to Jainism know this for centuries", he is suggesting that some people have been aware of white blood cells and their regenerative properties for centuries. This is plain false.
Jainist people might have discovered fasting has positive effects, this is not special at all, almost all religions and belief systems have fasting traditions and attribute positive effects on health to them.
Why would've scientists even bothered to research in this direction if they didn't believe there was something interesting going on there?
It's not so surprising to me. When you have stomach ache, the first thing they tell you is not to eat until you have been cleansed. We have always done that in my family. Also, once that I had a weird allergy on my skin (I'm not allergic to anything) I fasted for 4 days drinking Aquarius and some ham and rice the last 2 days. I didn't need any pills.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2014-06/uosc-fts06021...
The paper:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.stem.2014.04.014
Really it's just not worth even reading whatever the popular press has to say about a particular strand of research, especially when lines like "regenerate the entire immune system" are thrown around. No, no, no. Not what is happening: read the paper or even just the publicity materials. It is a very specific mechanism involving specific cell populations.
This is of interest to me primarily because it draws a comparatively sharp line in the sand between the occurrence of a beneficial immune system behavior that happens after three days of fasting but not prior to that point. There are not too many other items I can think of in connection with fasting or calorie restriction that have this discrete on/off behavior. It would be interesting to repeat this in healthy volunteers rather than cancer patients.