# Fasting for 3 days regenerates entire immune system



## ThreeYearsAndCounting

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/10878625/Fasting-for-three-days-can-regenerate-entire-immune-system-study-finds.html



> Fasting for as little as three days can regenerate the entire immune system, even in the elderly, scientists have found in a breakthrough described as "remarkable".
> 
> Although fasting diets have been criticised by nutritionists for being unhealthy, new research suggests starving the body kick-starts stem cells into producing new white blood cells, which fight off infection.
> 
> Scientists at the University of Southern California say the discovery could be particularly beneficial for people suffering from damaged immune systems, such as cancer patients on chemotherapy.
> 
> It could also help the elderly whose immune system becomes less effective as they age, making it harder for them to fight off even common diseases.
> 
> The researchers say fasting "flips a regenerative switch" which prompts stem cells to create brand new white blood cells, essentially regenerating the entire immune system.
> 
> "It gives the 'OK' for stem cells to go ahead and begin proliferating and rebuild the entire system," said Prof Valter Longo, Professor of Gerontology and the Biological Sciences at the University of California.
> 
> "And the good news is that the body got rid of the parts of the system that might be damaged or old, the inefficient parts, during the fasting.
> 
> "Now, if you start with a system heavily damaged by chemotherapy or ageing, fasting cycles can generate, literally, a new immune system."
> 
> Prolonged fasting forces the body to use stores of glucose and fat but also breaks down a significant portion of white blood cells.
> 
> During each cycle of fasting, this depletion of white blood cells induces changes that trigger stem cell-based regeneration of new immune system cells.
> 
> In trials humans were asked to regularly fast for between two and four days over a six-month period.
> 
> Scientists found that prolonged fasting also reduced the enzyme PKA, which is linked to ageing and a hormone which increases cancer risk and tumour growth.
> 
> "We could not predict that prolonged fasting would have such a remarkable effect in promoting stem cell-based regeneration of the hematopoietic system," added Prof Longo.
> 
> "When you starve, the system tries to save energy, and one of the things it can do to save energy is to recycle a lot of the immune cells that are not needed, especially those that may be damaged," Dr Longo said.
> 
> "What we started noticing in both our human work and animal work is that the white blood cell count goes down with prolonged fasting. Then when you re-feed, the blood cells come back. So we started thinking, well, where does it come from?"
> 
> Fasting for 72 hours also protected cancer patients against the toxic impact of chemotherapy.
> 
> "While chemotherapy saves lives, it causes significant collateral damage to the immune system. The results of this study suggest that fasting may mitigate some of the harmful effects of chemotherapy," said co-author Tanya Dorff, assistant professor of clinical medicine at the USC Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center and Hospital.
> 
> "More clinical studies are needed, and any such dietary intervention should be undertaken only under the guidance of a physician."
> 
> "We are investigating the possibility that these effects are applicable to many different systems and organs, not just the immune system," added Prof Longo.
> 
> However, some British experts were sceptical of the research.
> 
> Dr Graham Rook, emeritus professor of immunology at University College London, said the study sounded "improbable".
> 
> Chris Mason, Professor of Regenerative Medicine at UCL, said: "There is some interesting data here. It sees that fasting reduces the number and size of cells and then re-feeding at 72 hours saw a rebound.
> 
> "That could be potentially useful because that is not such a long time that it would be terribly harmful to someone with cancer.
> 
> "But I think the most sensible way forward would be to synthesize this effect with drugs. I am not sure fasting is the best idea. People are better eating on a regular basis."
> 
> Dr Longo added: "There is no evidence at all that fasting would be dangerous while there is strong evidence that it is beneficial.
> 
> "I have received emails from hundreds of cancer patients who have combined chemo with fasting, many with the assistance of the oncologists.
> 
> "Thus far the great majority have reported doing very well and only a few have reported some side effects including fainting and a temporary increase in liver markers. Clearly we need to finish the clinical trials, but it looks very promising."


----------



## JMH91

Immune cells are constantly being replaced anyway.

Fasting is more likely to make you sick, malnutrition is very common trigger for many immune-mediated disease


----------



## isen9977

Very interesting. Fasting is a method used for long time for this type of problems. This have to be an option in our case. Good job


----------



## JMH91

Go to afrika and ask all the people constantly dying there of opportunistic infections how healthy it is for immune system to be fasting


----------



## isen9977

JMH91 said:


> Go to afrika and ask all the people constantly dying there of opportunistic infections how healthy it is for immune system to be fasting


Dude you again? we all appreciate your help but can you please stop commenting every single post in this section like you are some kind of authority in the field. You are making this forum less useful for people every day.

Just post your opinion and move on dont try to change everybody in your way.


----------



## Freud

JMH91 said:


> Go to afrika and ask all the people constantly dying there of opportunistic infections how healthy it is for immune system to be fasting


There is a vast difference between prolonged starvation and fasting for three days once in a while. I know it may sound as a welfare privilege to say no to food. But you have to put it in proportion. There has been a lot of studies lately that show fasting is good for your health. I get that it's provocative but this phenomena is well documented. Fasting makes wonders for my IBS, and it's not even to compare with starvation, which is a totally different and alarming issue.

I think it makes sense since when you eat you also feed bacteria and other microorganisms which produce a varity of toxins, waste products, methane, ammonia etc. These are harsh on your body. When fasting this doesn't occur, not in the same rate anyway. So when you say fasting is more likely to make you sick do you have some facts or studies to back you up or are you thinking about starvation?


----------



## desprate

Hi Freud..

h r u?hope u doing well..dude i want little help here..i have a flight 2 catch in abt couple weeks and it's abt 18 hrs flight so can u tell me abt fasting plan of ur's and the thing is i don't wanna use toilet while i'm on flight cause it takes abt n hr for me in toilet and want 2 evacuate before flight so there will be no urge while i'm traveling plz help me out..

thanx in advance..

GOD bless us all.


----------



## JMH91

You are the one who as 0% evidence that this bullshit has any impact on IBS


----------



## Freud

JMH91 said:


> You are the one who as 0% evidence that this ###### has any impact on IBS


Luckily I said, fasting has an inpact on my IBS. If you want to know if it has an inpact on your IBS, there's such a thing as trying it out for yourself. Then you'll know for certain if it's for you or not. You haven't even tried fasting so I don't know why you are so anti.

If you want me to link to studies about fasting in general I can do that, but I thought the main post said enough.


----------



## Freud

desprate said:


> Hi Freud..
> 
> h r u?hope u doing well..dude i want little help here..i have a flight 2 catch in abt couple weeks and it's abt 18 hrs flight so can u tell me abt fasting plan of ur's and the thing is i don't wanna use toilet while i'm on flight cause it takes abt n hr for me in toilet and want 2 evacuate before flight so there will be no urge while i'm traveling plz help me out..
> 
> thanx in advance..
> 
> GOD bless us all.


I sent you a PM


----------



## desprate

Thanx Freud for ur post..

GOD bless u.


----------



## Freud

JMH91 said:


> You are the one who as 0% evidence that this ###### has any impact on IBS


And about that. Here's a small study that suggest that fasting may have beneficial effects on intractable patients with IBS.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17078771


----------



## JMH91

If you want to fast then feel free, but I severely doubt it is a practical solution with benefit on immune system (the opposite in fact) or IBS, or indeed odor complaint (presumably this is what you say it works for). Maybe you have placebo effect. For me, I have been fasting for a few days, with no effect other than lack of energy, lack of mental ability, and constant thoughts of eating. Odor complaint seemed to remain. You may even get cold sore recurrence (if you have it) during fast, which is body's way of telling you that it is under stress and for you to stop. Also strict diets with no good protein source.

What happens if you stop eating, is acute protein-energy malnutrition. Found in people who have not enough to eat in the third world, and in some people in the first world who have food but no sense. Body will burn fat and muscle stores because no nutrition is coming in. Fasting is exact opposite of bodybuilding nutrition, it is not for me. If someone laughs at me for smelling of ######, I want to feel like I am able to put them in hospital easily if I need

In real world, fasting is firmly an alternative and complimentary medicine industry practice. It is part of "Detox" concept, which is pure ###### to make money from desperate people's ignorance. There is no mainstream doctor who would advise to fast, unless for a specific purpose like for the hours before an anesthetic. I think, if you read mainstream source like medical textbooks they would give clear other side, that fasting is completely not needed by human body and indeed is bad for immune system and whole body. Because often alternative and complimentary medicine quack researchers try to present as real science.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein-energy_malnutrition


----------



## tummyrumbles

I'm not sure if fasting for days at a time is healthy, although the migrating motor complex, which is a fasting digestive process, is supposed to be very beneficial as it sweeps away bacteria. This is more of an overnight thing, although it's often suggested we should just stick to 3 meals a day, rather than graze during the day. The problem I have with fasting for a long period of time is that we're trying to normalise our colon function. Bowel evacuation is tied up with digestive process, and if people here are aiming to go every morning (usually after breakfast) I'm not sure how fasting would affect that. Most people here just want relief from their symptoms, and fasting might get rid of excess gas but then if your diet is bad you'll just end up where you were 3 days ago.


----------



## Freud

tummyrumbles said:


> I'm not sure if fasting for days at a time is healthy, although the migrating motor complex, which is a fasting digestive process, is supposed to be very beneficial as it sweeps away bacteria. This is more of an overnight thing, although it's often suggested we should just stick to 3 meals a day, rather than graze during the day. The problem I have with fasting for a long period of time is that we're trying to normalise our colon function. Bowel evacuation is tied up with digestive process, and if people here are aiming to go every morning (usually after breakfast) I'm not sure how fasting would affect that. Most people here just want relief from their symptoms, and fasting might get rid of excess gas but then if your diet is bad you'll just end up where you were 3 days ago.


I'll copy/paste part of the message I wrote to desprate: Fasting should be part of a treatment plan. A three day fast won't cure anyone. That's why it's important to look at every part of your lifestyle, as diet. My experience with fasting goes a long way back and it has helped. But it's as everything else. It takes time and will, and is best used repeatedly together with lifestyle changes.

When you say a long period, what do you mean? One, two or even three days isn't a long period if done once a month or once every two month. I'm mainly IBS-D but I have periods of IBS-C and fasting always helps. Sure bowel evacuation is tied up with the digestive process but your bowel won't stop working from a one, two or three day fast. In my experience it reliefs both D, C and flatulence, depending on the issue.


----------



## Freud

JMH91 said:


> If you want to fast then feel free, but I severely doubt it is a practical solution with benefit on immune system (the opposite in fact) or IBS, or indeed odor complaint (presumably this is what you say it works for). Maybe you have placebo effect. For me, I have been fasting for a few days, with no effect other than lack of energy, lack of mental ability, and constant thoughts of eating. Odor complaint seemed to remain. You may even get cold sore recurrence (if you have it) during fast, which is body's way of telling you that it is under stress and for you to stop. Also strict diets with no good protein source.
> 
> What happens if you stop eating, is acute protein-energy malnutrition. Found in people who have not enough to eat in the third world, and in some people in the first world who have food but no sense. Body will burn fat and muscle stores because no nutrition is coming in. Fasting is exact opposite of bodybuilding nutrition, it is not for me. If someone laughs at me for smelling of ######, I want to feel like I am able to put them in hospital easily if I need
> 
> In real world, fasting is firmly an alternative and complimentary medicine industry practice. It is part of "Detox" concept, which is pure ###### to make money from desperate people's ignorance. There is no mainstream doctor who would advise to fast, unless for a specific purpose like for the hours before an anesthetic. I think, if you read mainstream source like medical textbooks they would give clear other side, that fasting is completely not needed by human body and indeed is bad for immune system and whole body. Because often alternative and complimentary medicine quack researchers try to present as real science.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein-energy_malnutrition


The thing is. There's tons of research that weigh heavier than what you think. What are you basing your thesis on? You say that you seriously doubt it is a practical solution with benefit on immune system or IBS. Yet, I just posted a study that suggested it may be beneficial on intractable patients with IBS. And ThreeYearsAndCounting an article evaluating studies that shows fasting for three days can regenerate the immune system. And yet, you believe your thoughts on the subjects is more convincing proof.

You think that fasting is only an alternative medicine quack practice because you know nothing about intermittent fasting and its effects on the body, since you prefer to trust your own instict over numerous of studies (talk about quack) who claims it's benficial . For example Intermittent fasting (IF; reduced meal frequency) and caloric restriction (CR) extend lifespan and increase resistance to age-related diseases in rodents and monkeys and improve the health of overweight humans. Both IF and CR enhance cardiovascular and brain functions and improve several risk factors for coronary artery disease and stroke including a reduction in blood pressure and increased insulin sensitivity. Cardiovascular stress adaptation is improved and heart rate variability is increased in rodents maintained on an IF or a CR diet. Moreover, rodents maintained on an IF regimen exhibit increased resistance of heart and brain cells to ischemic injury in experimental models of myocardial infarction and stroke. The beneficial effects of IF and CR result from at least two mechanisms--reduced oxidative damage and increased cellular stress resistance. Recent findings suggest that some of the beneficial effects of IF on both the cardiovascular system and the brain are mediated by brain-derived neurotrophic factor signaling in the brain. Interestingly, cellular and molecular effects of IF and CR on the cardiovascular system and the brain are similar to those of regular physical exercise, suggesting shared mechanisms. A better understanding of the cellular and molecular mechanisms by which IF and CR affect the blood vessels and heart and brain cells will likely lead to novel preventative and therapeutic strategies for extending health span. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15741046

And fasting shouldn't cost money. If so you're doing it wrong. If anyhing, it saves you money, since one doesn't eat for a day, or two or three. Or what one pefer.


----------



## Kathleen M.

I agree most scientifically inclined would not recommend extended fasts as we know from anorexic patients and famine victims what weeks or months of extreme food reduction does to the body, and none of it is good.

There is some scientific interest in short term fasting (The Mormon Study where some but not all of the population routinely does a mini-fast of ~24 hours typically once a week.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2572991/

What is interesting about that study is the Mormons who were not fasting also generally tend to be healthy so even there they saw a difference.

That being said, fasting is obviously not appropriate for everyone, and even for short-term fasts it wouldn't hurt to check in with the doctor before taking them on to make sure you aren't likely to run into problems.

I also agree that the general "detoxing" thing is very alt med and not really well proven (as you make toxins from digesting away your own body). However there may be effects on the body from short, intermittent fasts that are short enough to avoid the major problems, but long enough to have a physiological effect that may be beneficial (at least from the preliminary data and I like the data in humans much more than any data in animals).

After all if you think back through most of history people missed a meal now and then, so those that do well on a missed meal or day or two of low food consumption probably survived longer and had more kids than those that would die or get seriously ill from a day or two of missed/skimpy meals.

I think the main question we don't know is what are the variables. How often does the fast need to happen. How well do some of the animal trials translate to the human body (the above study was done in mice and yeast no matter how much some of the reporting tries to make it sound like it works the exact same way in humans). How long is safe for any of the fasts, and how severe do they really need to be. A lot of the human data (like the Mormon or Ramadan studies) are from protocols that are not scientifically derived so may not be the ideal (or the minimum needed to see an effect).

It can be a contentious area of discussion as fasting has its true believers who don't seem to care what the biology of extended fasting says (I know I feel good so nothing bad could be happening) vs the fear of famine which does run deep as it is has killed/maimed a lot of people and may cause epigenetic changes that effect not just the person who went through the famine but the next generation or two.

And it is hard to separate the science from the woo. Not all fasting is woo, but not all fasting is science, either (even if there may be some studies that might indicate that maybe there is some effect you may want).


----------



## Freud

Kathleen M. said:


> I agree most scientifically inclined would not recommend extended fasts as we know from anorexic patients and famine victims what weeks or months of extreme food reduction does to the body, and none of it is good.
> 
> It can be a contentious area of discussion as fasting has its true believers who don't seem to care what the biology of extended fasting says


Who is speaking about extended fasts? An extended fast would be a form of starvation, while intermittent fasting is not.


----------



## Kathleen M.

Well even the paper that started this refers to 48-72 hour fasts as prolonged (how prolonged does it have to be to be "extended"?? 3 days is prolonged but 3.5 is extended, or do you only mean 30 day fasts or longer as extended?)

Usually from how I read the scientific papers I have I would call intermittent more like the ~24 hour fast of the Mormons or the ~12 hour fast during Ramadan. But that is me.











> Prolonged fasting (PF) lasting 48-120 hr


And FWIW most of the people I know who proclaim the virtues of 7 day, 21 day, 30 day fasts all start with the 1 day or less that tend to be the "intermittent fasting" where most of the science IN HUMANS seems to run. Usually the more Woo vs Science one is the more one is likely to start prolonged fasting and proclaiming it as the one true detox in all the world.

Now it is true most of the prolonged fasters I know are not doing water only fasts, but some are, and they all claim the mystical feeling of clarity is EXACTLY the same as their body getting stronger and more pure rather than a byproduct of the toxins produced by such a feat.

Hard to know how a 3 day fast in mice really translates to a human being. I'm also have not checked how into the woo the "Longevity Institute, School of Gerontology, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Southern California" is. Just because it is an academic institution doesn't mean that they are not heavily into what some call quackademic medicine.

Like I said, wouldn't do a three day fast based on what happened in mice. I might take up the 1/2 to 1 day reductions you see work in Mormons, although I have some carbohydrate processing issues that may make even that much fasting very unwise. We just don't really have data in people with my issue.

What I don't know is where is that line, IN A HUMAN BEING, between physiologically beneficial and physiologically harmful. Or how that may vary from person to person. Unfortunately it is very hard to take the early work that is done in animals and know exactly how it translates to human beings. So much that seems so promising when done in mice and yeast doesn't. Some of it does, so it is worth doing the animal/yeast work when thinking about human health, but I'm always cautious about early days and thinking that if it is somewhat good for a mouse it must therefore be really good for a human.

I also don't know if 10 days while medically supervised means safe for anyone random at home, either. Is 10 days prolonged, extended or intermittent?

I'm not saying all fasting is bad or all fasting is woo, just be very careful when trying to replicate what they did with a mouse in a lab or even in humans in a controlled medically supervised setting. Some of the most beneficial results in HUMANS seems to be with things that are a lot shorter term than a lot of what the fasting promotors seem to be promoting. I don't think we really have the data to say 3 days every week or every month is absolutely safe and will absolutely do only positive things. I do think we have some evidence that reduced calories once a week may be more beneficial than harmful.


----------



## Freud

Kathleen M. said:


> Well even the paper that started this refers to 48-72 hour fasts as prolonged (how prolonged does it have to be to be "extended"?? 3 days is prolonged but 3.5 is extended, or do you only mean 30 day fasts or longer as extended?)
> 
> Usually from how I read the scientific papers I have I would call intermittent more like the ~24 hour fast of the Mormons or the ~12 hour fast during Ramadan. But that is me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And FWIW most of the people I know who proclaim the virtues of 7 day, 21 day, 30 day fasts all start with the 1 day or less that tend to be the "intermittent fasting" where most of the science IN HUMANS seems to run. Usually the more Woo vs Science one is the more one is likely to start prolonged fasting and proclaiming it as the one true detox in all the world.
> 
> Now it is true most of the prolonged fasters I know are not doing water only fasts, but some are, and they all claim the mystical feeling of clarity is EXACTLY the same as their body getting stronger and more pure rather than a byproduct of the toxins produced by such a feat.
> 
> Hard to know how a 3 day fast in mice really translates to a human being. I'm also have not checked how into the woo the "Longevity Institute, School of Gerontology, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Southern California" is. Just because it is an academic institution doesn't mean that they are not heavily into what some call quackademic medicine.
> 
> Like I said, wouldn't do a three day fast based on what happened in mice. I might take up the 1/2 to 1 day reductions you see work in Mormons, although I have some carbohydrate processing issues that may make even that much fasting very unwise. We just don't really have data in people with my issue.
> 
> What I don't know is where is that line, IN A HUMAN BEING, between physiologically beneficial and physiologically harmful. Or how that may vary from person to person. Unfortunately it is very hard to take the early work that is done in animals and know exactly how it translates to human beings. So much that seems so promising when done in mice and yeast doesn't. Some of it does, so it is worth doing the animal/yeast work when thinking about human health, but I'm always cautious about early days and thinking that if it is somewhat good for a mouse it must therefore be really good for a human.
> 
> I also don't know if 10 days while medically supervised means safe for anyone random at home, either. Is 10 days prolonged, extended or intermittent?
> 
> I'm not saying all fasting is bad or all fasting is woo, just be very careful when trying to replicate what they did with a mouse in a lab or even in humans in a controlled medically supervised setting. Some of the most beneficial results in HUMANS seems to be with things that are a lot shorter term than a lot of what the fasting promotors seem to be promoting. I don't think we really have the data to say 3 days every week or every month is absolutely safe and will absolutely do only positive things. I do think we have some evidence that reduced calories once a week may be more beneficial than harmful.


I looked it up on wiki. The body's glycogen reserve is enough to provide glucose for about 24 hours. After the exhaustion of the glycogen reserve, and for the next* 2-3 days*, fatty acids are the principal metabolic fuel. At first, the brain continues to use glucose, because, if a non-brain tissue is using fatty acids as its metabolic fuel, the use of glucose in the same tissue is switched off. Thus, when fatty acids are being broken down for energy, all of the remaining glucose is made available for use by the brain. *After several days of fasting*, all cells in the body begin to break down protein. This releases amino acids into the bloodstream, which can be converted into glucose by the liver. Since much of our muscle mass is protein, this phenomenon is responsible for the wasting away of muscle mass seen in starvation.

Based on this I don't know if my conclusion is correct. But, could one say that anything over 3 days is considered extended? i.e as long as glycogen and fatty acids is used as fuel and not muscle mass protein.

I just thought, when you mentioned fasting and anorexia in the same sentence. Of course fasting can be used by sufferes of anorexia but that has more to do with starvation and loosing weight than health, and they do it for an extended period of time, for weeks, months or even years depending of how long they have been sick. And it's obvious that kind of extreme non-diet is bad for you body. A 1, 2 or even 3 days fast can't be compred to anorexia or starvation in third world countries. When willingly fasting you have had acess to nutritional food all the days before fasting and will have for the days to come too. Starvation in third world countries and anorexia is a different story. "Starvation is a severe deficiency in caloric energy intake. It is the most extreme form of malnutrition."

There's studies on human beings too. As the initial post and my post with the study of fasting and IBS. But there's more. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16131283 for example. Just google it and you will find.

I think people should be careful too. Always when trying something new one should start very careful.


----------



## JMH91

tummyrumbles said:


> although it's often suggested we should just stick to 3 meals a day, rather than graze during the day.


Interesting, because I imagine human ancestor in evolution to be "grazing" (not grass obviously) throughout day rather than having 3 neat meals per day. Reason is, you have to suspect that human gut has evolved to be most efficient to match the eating behavior of ancestors. On similar topic, this "paleo diet" has always sounded interested to me, but I have not ever tried it or researched it.

EDIT: maybe you talk about advice for SIBO like Pimmentel, who talks of 3 meals per day with no snacking in between


----------



## Freud

JMH91 said:


> Interesting, because I imagine human ancestor in evolution to be "grazing" (not grass obviously) throughout day rather than having 3 neat meals per day. Reason is, you have to suspect that human gut has evolved to be most efficient to match the eating behavior of ancestors. On similar topic, this "paleo diet" has always sounded interested to me, but I have not ever tried it or researched it.
> 
> EDIT: maybe you talk about advice for SIBO like Pimmentel, who talks of 3 meals per day with no snacking in between


Who are these ancestors you are talking about? It's not like the food supply was as overwhelming and accessible as it is today before Industrialisation.

Also the paleo diet is based on the idea that our guts hasn't had the time to evolve to the eating habits of today. And why do you think our ancestors was grazing?


----------



## JMH91

Freud said:


> The thing is. There's tons of research that weigh heavier than what you think. What are you basing your thesis on? You say that you seriously doubt it is a practical solution with benefit on immune system or IBS. Yet, I just posted a study that suggested it may be beneficial on intractable patients with IBS. And ThreeYearsAndCounting an article evaluating studies that shows fasting for three days can regenerate the immune system. And yet, you believe your thoughts on the subjects is more convincing proof.


Technically mine would be the antithesis, not thesis. But you are right, I am not going to bother to research this... I have more pressing things to do right now. But after researching many, many different health topics over many years, you can get "sixth sense" of what is alt med bullshit and what is real science. I strongly suspect, you are pasting here only small studies which favor this. Where are the other side of story from mainstream medicine that you have not to read? For virtually any health topic, there are many, many science papers published. The spectrum of how good is this evidence is very variable from one to the next. Also for any topic you have the mainstream opinion (in this case, it would something be like: "just eat normally like a normal person"), and you have the alternative and complimentary medicine "researchers" saying that (e.g. "not eating is all kinds of healthy and good"). By reading and selecting only the non-mainstream sources and ignoring the mainstream, you can easily build a superficially convincing argument for any health topic. If topic is explored deeper, then the picture becomes more complicated that not all scientists agree with this, or indeed that most disagree with it. I try to describe "sixth sense" here. So anyway, I have not time to research this, and it is not desirable for me to try this fasting recommendation again.


----------



## JMH91

Freud said:


> Who are these ancestors you are talking about? It's not like the food supply was as overwhelming as it is today before Industrialisation.


I mean, the evolutionary ancestors of humans,

correct, food would probably have been in very small amounts, and found throughout the day as foraging progresses from one area to the next. This is why I question 3 main meal concept above... why would 3 main meal be the natural thing for out gut if 3 meal per day did not happen as our guts evolved over time with us and eating behaviors


----------



## Freud

JMH91 said:


> Technically mine would be the antithesis, not thesis. But you are right, I am not going to bother to research this... I have more pressing things to do right now. But after researching many, many different health topics over many years, you can get "sixth sense" of what is alt med ###### and what is real science. I strongly suspect, you are pasting here only small studies which favor this. Where are the other side of story from mainstream medicine that you have not to read? For virtually any health topic, there are many, many science papers published. The spectrum of how good is this evidence is very variable from one to the next. Also for any topic you have the mainstream opinion (in this case, it would something be like: "just eat normally like a normal person"), and you have the alternative and complimentary medicine "researchers" saying that (e.g. "not eating is all kinds of healthy and good"). By reading and selecting only the non-mainstream sources and ignoring the mainstream, you can easily build a superficially convincing argument for any health topic. If topic is explored deeper, then the picture becomes more complicated that not all scientists agree with this, or indeed that most disagree with it. I try to describe "sixth sense" here. So anyway, I have not time to research this, and it is not desirable for me to try this fasting recommendation again.


It's funny you're hatin' on alternative medicine while referring to your sixth sense.

Since it's you who should deliver the antithesis it's obviously not my job to bring the scientific proof for you.

If you don't have time, then stop discussing and do your important stuff instead.


----------



## Kathleen M.

Well I know what he means.

There is a lot of "quackademic" medical research out there and most of it fuels things like Dr. Oz saying X is a miracle weight loss fixer based on the "evidence" of 3 studies with 20 people each that have no controls, etc. (see recent Senate Hearing).

There is also a lot of legit medical research that is preliminary and someone looking to see if there is anything there worth the hassle of trying to get a grant that would cover an experiment that would actually create enough evidence to actually recommend a health behavior change. Yet it worked in a test tube becomes the next miracle cure in a heartbeat if someone can sell it for a profit.

So some of the 6th sense is something even scientists develop over time (that feeling that maybe this isn't nearly as good as the breathlessly optimistic reporting on the study seems to be, or what you find on wikipedia or from Dr. Google) Like with the OP's article the news report sounded like it is proven to work in humans, and does something beneficial in humans, where what we know is it has some effect in mice, and genetically engineered yeasts.

Heck, a lot of the time I don't trust the abstracts on Pubmed because they often really don't tell the whole story and you need to read and analyze the whole paper before you are really certain of how much weight to give to the study.

For example the Mormon paper I referenced with a n of 4,629 people in the study and is not as confounded with a bunch of other treatments or requires hospitalization and full time medical care...is enough that maybe skipping dinner once a week wouldn't be a bad thing given my CVD risk. But since I don't have full access to my Glycogen and that is rare enough you wouldn't see the effects in the study I may still need to be more careful about that.

Even though most promoters of fasting (as there are a lot more alt med ones that SBM ones) seem to insist that no matter how extreme the fast you do not need a hospital and best not have a medical professional involved in anyway even to monitor you as the engineer with an online nutritional certificate from an unaccredited school certainly knows how much fasting is safe for all people and is certain it is only doing good things. (yeah that is a stereotype but it gets annoying to see people who sometimes demonstrate little to no understanding of biology even if they can use some of the big words relatively well making what may be dangerous recommendations).

Again my main concerns is what really is were is that line between almost always safe (skipping one meal is unlikely to kill anyone other than people being treated for diabetes and are prone to dangerous drops in blood sugar or have other serious blood sugar control issues if they have no access to food or medical care when they are about to pass out) and we know it is almost always damaging (famine and anorexia).

I'm not sure we know how intermittent or how long a fast is really going to create more benefit than harm. We have some clues, but there is so much woo, and so much co-opted by the wooers.


----------



## JMH91

Freud said:


> It's funny you're hatin' on alternative medicine while referring to your sixth sense.


I describe it badly as sense ... knowledge + experience from one topic links to another


----------



## Freud

JMH91 said:


> I describe it badly as sense ... knowledge + experience from one topic links to another


Still, you haven't given one single scientific proof other than your gut feeling and some mysterious texts you have read previously.

NCBI is a respectable source.


----------



## Freud

Kathleen M. said:


> Well I know what he means.
> 
> There is a lot of "quackademic" medical research out there and most of it fuels things like Dr. Oz saying X is a miracle weight loss fixer based on the "evidence" of 3 studies with 20 people each that have no controls, etc. (see recent Senate Hearing).


Sure but what has NCBI have to do with "quackademic" medical research?



> There is also a lot of legit medical research that is preliminary and someone looking to see if there is anything there worth the hassle of trying to get a grant that would cover an experiment that would actually create enough evidence to actually recommend a health behavior change. Yet it worked in a test tube becomes the next miracle cure in a heartbeat if someone can sell it for a profit.


True, but where is the counter-evidence?



> So some of the 6th sense is something even scientists develop over time (that feeling that maybe this isn't nearly as good as the breathlessly optimistic reporting on the study seems to be, or what you find on wikipedia or from Dr. Google). Like with the OP's article the news report sounded like it is proven to work in humans, and does something beneficial in humans, where what we know is it has some effect in mice, and genetically engineered yeasts.


Sorry, I didn't see the mice part. But still, research has been done on humans too.



> Heck, a lot of the time I don't trust the abstracts on Pubmed because they often really don't tell the whole story and you need to read and analyze the whole paper before you are really certain of how much weight to give to the study.


Yes, but that's appliable always, not only in this case.



> Even though most promoters of fasting (as there are a lot more alt med ones that SBM ones) seem to insist that no matter how extreme the fast you do not need a hospital and best not have a medical professional involved in anyway even to monitor you as the engineer with an online nutritional certificate from an unaccredited school certainly knows how much fasting is safe for all people and is certain it is only doing good things.


That sound like a really unsafe and unserious approach.


----------



## Kathleen M.

1. Plenty of dubious altmed resesearch gets into PubMed.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nlmcatalog?cmd=historysearch&querykey=10

and a fair amount gets into regular medical journals as well.

It really takes a pretty good body of work (many papers, several different researchers, and in this case size does matter) before something is really able to be shown to be beneficial. Even things that seemed to have that in the bag have been shown to not be so good once you get to a big enough study to actually prove if A reduces the risk of B. (see HRT reduces heart disease history of papers if you want to see that in action)

2. What from all the other biomedical researchers who say that no one ever does any pilot studies from the small grant awards trying to see if they get enough there to actually get one of the big grants where you can actually do big enough studies to actually prove things?

Or all the "that didn't work at all" data that never gets published as it is generally considered easier to publish we found a maybe kinda of something that might be interesting paper than we found nothing, there is nothing to see here at all papers.

We had some dude selling the latest greatest miracle juice here for awhile. Was all excited when the test tube data got mentioned on a fairly reliable website (which was only listing that because they list what evidence there is for a something, not if the evidence is the end all be all to prove everyone must buy it now or die)

3. Some has but you wouldn't know from the reporting on the study it was done in mice, at least not if you skim the news articles. Sounds like some big human trial, not that we tried to tie what we saw to some other things that may be happening in some people in that study over there.

4. Nice to agree on something.









5. But one I have seen. Know lots of people who are on 30+ day juice fasts (which at least aren't total fasts) or only eat fruits and veggies until they get so low on essential fats they have a hemorrhagic stroke (friend of mine). Although I can't be certain the fast led to the stroke (as she was prone to them) a nutritionally incomplete diet probably didn't help, and everyone she talked to said this diet with all its restrictions (and people drop weight like crazy as you can't get enough calories on whole fruits and veggies and I don't think any of them ate avocados for some reason...probably why people juice more these days..) would only make her the healthiest healthy that ever walked the planet. Most true believers do not take into account all the different views and people are notoriously bad (from the studies) at assessing risk:benefit ratios.







this site recommends water only fasts from 3 to 30 days http://drbenkim.com/fasting.html

Google 30 day water fast and there are lots of people recommending it and claiming it totally detoxs and heals you, no risk, all benefit.


----------



## JMH91

This NCBI site, aka pubmed, is a repository of (23 million) publications on biomedical topics. Some of the entries are very good, others are not. You cannot judge that it is a good publication just from this alone.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed

Better to talk of "evidence levels"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_based_medicine#Assessing_the_quality_of_evidence


----------



## Freud

JMH91 said:


> Better to talk of "evidence levels"
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_based_medicine#Assessing_the_quality_of_evidence


Why don't you start? I'd love to see any scientific proof that intermittent fasting is bad for your health. And if you may, it would be great if you added a little comment about the evidence levels of your source of choice.


----------



## Freud

1. The link leads to a dead page, but I get what you mean. I don't know if "quackademic" would be my word of choice though. Needs further study would describe the matter more truthfully I believe.

2. Yes, but if there was any data suggesting intermittent fasting is straightway dangerous, that wouldn't just be hid away.

3. I don't know how well you could tell the outcome in humans by studying mice response. Do you?

4. Yeah









5. That goes against all common sense. 30 days is a lot. And i'm sure, risky. (and sorry about your friend, hope she's fine today)


----------



## Kathleen M.

In response to any evidence in all the world it might have even one negative thing about it, and lost some of the links I forget to do the links so it keeps them all sometimes.

Study in mice (two types fairly large number of mice)

Seem OK for the wild type mice, but for the mice that were engineered to have problems with diabetes and heart disease it wasn't so good. (which you see with many things, that which may be good for many people is really bad for a few)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23382817

In Rats may reduce fertility

Ramadan study on children born to mothers fasting during pregnancy, epigenetics.

This study suggests that exposure to Ramadan during pregnancy may have lasting consequences for adult body size of the offspring.

Effects of Ramadan on athletic performance has a few studies and the results seem mixed, no serious badness, but certainly doesn't help performance, and they still eat every day and can eat enough calories during the night to make up for the loss during the day. I wouldn't be fasting of any kind (unless you have to) while doing a lot of physical training or right before a competition.

A lot of the human studies are quite small so you don't expect them to find adverse effects (or even if they really looked for them) Most of them seem to be comparing intermittent fasting with continuous dieting (so overall same amount of calories gone per week, just how they are arranged). And a lot of those were so small that I'd say expecting them to predict anything for the population at large is extremely uncertain.

My main concern, because I've seen it too many times with how legit science gets twisted by CAM is that if fasting for most of a day once a week is good, then fasting for days on end and only eating a couple of days out of the month must be sooooo much better. It is the way humans work. If a little is good, then saying a lot is way better just seems to appeal to us. That and we really don't know where that boundry is between when any benefits there are start to go down and the dangers begin to increase (and the what about the variation in people where some people may be OK with one skipped meal, and some up to 6 skipped meals and a few up to 15 skipped meals, etc).


----------



## Kathleen M.

If you wanna read from the people that have a peeve about all the quackery in the science lit and in medicine.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/

But if you listen to the CAM people they are all pharmacy shills out to be as evil as possible in the world so approach with caution. 

My link was what you get if you search Pubmed's list of journals for Complementary and Alternative Medicine.

2. I'm not saying missing one meal will kill you. I don't think anyone is. The question is where is the line between benefit and risk, and I don't think we have that data anywhere.

3. Humans from mice, it varies, greatly. We share a lot, but there are things we don't and it is relatively unpredictable what actually is good for humans. Heck sometimes it is unpredictable what is good for humans in a study of 15 people to what ends up being good in a well controlled study of 15 thousand. (HRT for preventing heart disease is a classic. I think they had to stop the trial early because even though everything done in HUMANS up until then made it look good, turned out to be bad).

4. 

5. You think people generally act from common sense? How cute.  There are a shocking number of people doing 30 day water fasts and more that do 21-30 day juice only fasts. Really, it seems to be practically an epidemic around here, you should google some fasting forums to see how certain a lot of people are that a 30 day fast is more than reasonable.


----------



## JMH91

Freud said:


> Why don't you start? I'd love to see any scientific proof that intermittent fasting is bad for your health. And if you may, it would be great if you added a little comment about the evidence levels of your source of choice.


Going back to my comment about reading only things which support that fasting is healthy, it looks like you missed this on the same ( i think) wikipedia page quoted before ...



> The body's rate of protein loss is greatest during the first 72 hours


I am confident of my decision too keep eating for the next 3 days







And not just next 3, but all the days after that too

Here is mainstream, brief commentary of "detox" lies promoted by purveyors of complimentary medicine quacks to make money=

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detoxification_(alternative_medicine)


----------



## desprate

Thanx for ur help Freud..

GOD bless us all......


----------



## stacyg

Interesting idea. If this works for allergies, I may have to try it out. But then, can I go without food completely for 3 straight days? Pretty sure I can't.


----------



## funtimes

In my opinion, and from what some doctors have told me, the thing about fasting is if your digestive system is sluggish then whats keeping you going to the bathroom is eating (food acts as a stimulant for the sick, sluggish bowel). So if you stop eating then food will sit in your digestive system for possibly weeks at a time and ferment. I have read that this is normal for sick people and if you fast long enough your body will eventualy evacuate the stuff in your digestive system. However if you are suffering from having gas leak out of your rectum then it stands to reason that fasting with all the fermentation it brings will make your symptoms much much worse before it makes it better (if it even does).

I fasted for a week one time and did not go to the bathroom once during that time, though i did feel as though i had something stuck in my colon as if i should go, but i didnt feel the urge and i couldn't. The smell i gave off was horrible, even by our standards, people could smell me from 20 meters away and it was extremely bad smell. Compare that to when i do a "juice fast" drinking nothing but vegetable juice, where i will continue to go to the bathroom for up to 2 weeks into the fast passing solid fecel matter almost every day.

Also it is strongly recomended by people in the know, that fasting for extended periods of time is dangerous and if done should be monitored by a doctor experienced in the application who can watch for danger signs, do blood tests and guide you through certain stages (such as at the end where if you eat the wrong foods it can damage your extra sensitive digestive tract)


----------

