Hacker News Reader

Comment by thethrows | Hacker News Reader

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).

View on HN

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).

Aren't humans hunter-gathers and not having food for some periods of time has become part of who we are?

To me vasting makes total sense, whether it's religious, spiritual or otherwise.

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.

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).

Interesting. That would explain why it isn't seen mentioned much anywhere nowdays.

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.

Calorie reduction makes you feel hungry until you get used to it.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com