Fasting triggers stem cell regeneration of damaged, old immune system (2014)
eurekalert.org
eurekalert.org
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.
To look at it from the opposite perspective, here's a helpful guide for scientists on how to get a health study into the UK news: http://www.nhs.uk/news/2014/12December/Pages/your-guide-to-h...
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.
Here's their 'Numbers of the Year 2014' -
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/moreorless/moreor...
> Circulation 544,546 Daily[2] (as of March 2014)
That's considerably more than the Guardian (at 186,000 daily) or the Independent (at less than 100,000) or both of them combined.
Low quality means little in terms of sales - look at the god-awful Daily Mail.
1/http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4190937/ - short term allergic response reduced in mice as an effect of fasting, but returned after a bit of time.
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
3/ http://ebm.sagepub.com/content/226/11/1045.short , http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378427403... - dietary restriction reduces skin allergy in mice
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
-- http://www.bmj.com/content/349/bmj.g7015
Good science reporting on: http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2014/12/09/the-power...
Then there're people who have overcome hunger [0]. But this cannot be achieved through fasting but through practice of Yoga.
0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prahlad_Jani
"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 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.
Long story short - if their claims are true they will be able to be reproduced by other researchers. Until then, colour me sceptical.
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.
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.
> 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. ;)
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.
Isn't that the other way round? As a non-mormon I'm not about to call anyone prophetic/visionary.
They are as Christian as catholics are, perhaps even more so as in my opinion they follow his ideology a whole lot better.
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.
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
That was never a christian belief to begin with.
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).
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 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.
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.
Given what he had to work with I think he did pretty well.
Most mainstream Christians don't consider Mormons as Christians because they have added to the Bible, which is considered a heresy.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed#Comparison_betwee... (note that "catholic" in this means "diverse" and doesn't specifically refer to the Catholic church)
[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.
Religions use a bunch of jargon. "Prophetic role" is descriptive where their particular jargon word is not.
Edit: you might refer to Bob: "Bob, the one who calls himself a prophet".
- 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.
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)
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...
just for argument's sake...
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.
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.
You're still trapped in a category Christians (or any traditional Theists) don't believe about God. We're asserting X, you're attacking Y.
all sound arguments are valid but not all valid arguments are sound.
so I ask; in what way is my argument invalid?
-----
[1]: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity#Validity_and_soundne...
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
Either way, I'm willing to take that risk.
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.
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.)
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).
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.
An illiterate shepherd? He was a merchant until he was 40 and then became a warrior.
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)
p.s. Do you mean that your evidence is anecdotal as opposed to empirical?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence
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 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....
http://www.prem-rawat-talk.org/forum/uploads/CultCharacteris...
> Any kind of stress will trigger an increase in immune system activity and cell regeneration
Would be nice if that extended to smoking but alas..
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.
There are studies comparing longevity at least. http://www.scientificintegrityinstitute.org/prevmed2008lifes...
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
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 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.
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.
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 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.
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'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?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25552155
"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."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-can-a-per...
"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."
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-17095605
"Experts believe it is possible for the human body to survive without food for up to two months."
A paper on obese women fasting for 6 days: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9330585
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
> "I am not sure fasting is the best idea. People are better eating on a regular basis."
The exact issue at stake is whether people are better when eating on a regular basis!
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.
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.
compare profit margin of magic pill versus telling someone to make a concious effort for few days
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.
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.
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.
maybe it was the sodium?
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.
excerpt on gbooks:
http://books.google.com/books?id=N1DTZ18N-_YC&lpg=PA1&pg=PT1...
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:
http://youtu.be/jqxENMKaeCU?t=5m47s
hope this helps.
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2014-01-09/latest-research...
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)
I think this is the actual study: http://www.cell.com/cell-stem-cell/abstract/S1934-5909(14)00...
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].
[1]: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Longo+VD
[2]: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-25549805
[3]: http://news.usc.edu/58074/wanted-a-recipe-for-longevity/
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-19112549
"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."
He's maintaining a website and has done a couple of books on fasting, and the 5:2 diet in particular: http://thefastdiet.co.uk/
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.
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.
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.
To me vasting makes total sense, whether it's religious, spiritual or otherwise.
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.
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?
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.
Some people do not get hungry very often, and eat what is, for many people, very little, and are not hungry or lacking in energy.
The 3 meals a day rhetoric has been widespread (some even advocating even more than that), but it seems a bit overblown.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xvdbtt_eat-fast-live-longer...
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.
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.
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.
Whenever I try eating once a day or a fast, I feel fine, except that without fail I have diarrhea.
Also, you need to try it yourself. Every body is different.
You should try things like multiple small meals, or one big meal, or no carbs, or no gluten and honestly evaluate how they impact your life.
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.
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 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.
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
https://m.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=101521750395...
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.
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.
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.
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.
I have no idea why you are being downvoted.
"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?