The Miraculous Power of Fasting

I don't think you can call it a "fast" unless there are at least 24 hours without food of any kind.
Intermittent fasting is a specific type(s) of fasting, one of which is where you don't eat for 16 hours, then can for the next 8 and repeat. In general, most definitions of fast consider anything intentional above 12 hours a fast. Per WebMD "A fast usually lasts from 12 to 24 hours, but some types continue for days at a time."
 
Google "Fasting and stem cell regeneration". Depending on what you are trying to accomplish, weight loss or real healing it takes days not hours.

Real healing involving stem cell regeneration requires a 24 - 48 hour fast.....
 
Last edited:
It should also be noted that while fasting you need to keep a close eye on your blood sugar.
My understanding is while fasting our body in order to maintain an energy level will deplete glucose first, then move on to fat, and finely after a prolong fast will feed off of muscle..... I know this is simplified, any thoughts?
 
If it's not at least a full day, it's not a fast. It's just "being a little hungry."
How long it takes depends on the markers you're looking at, how much glycogen you've got stored in your liver, and how active you are during the fasted period. 12 hours can be enough to enter a fasted state and 24 may too short, depending on the individual.

This isn't the best article I've seen but it's got a decent summary:

Flipping the Metabolic Switch: Understanding and Applying Health Benefits of Fasting

That's not healthy.

Actually it's very healthy and is one of the only things (mostly) proven to extend lifespan and healthspan, assuming you don't have any medical contraindications or take it to the extremes - several weeks+ without eating (see article above).
 
Last edited:
There are actually a lot of risks associated with not consuming food, and it doesn't have to be weeks.

Daily food consumption is part of the natural cycle. Not eating for a day is probably fine. Beyond 24 hours, caution is warranted. Blood sugar can plummet, dehydration can set in, cortisol levels can spike, sleep can be disrupted, and migraine headaches can set in.

One of the worst things I've experienced from a total food fast (3 days) was intense stomach acid. Without anything to digest, acid levels can get really high and cause vomiting, which also leads to things like dehydration.

So I'd caution saying it's "proven" to improve health and lengthen life. Depending on the individual, there are a range of issues that can crop up. Fasting from certain things (sugar, alcohol, fried food) is probably a lot safer than not eating anything for days. Avoiding food entirely is considered an extreme diet.

Not to mention, most people fast to lose weight, and it's just not an effective way of doing that.
 
, assuming you don't have any medical contraindications or take it to the extremes - several weeks+ without eating (see article above).
There are a few other assumptions to factor in. Your body is designed to take in food daily, and I'm not a big fan of "body hacking", or other extreme diets and fads.

I've experienced some of these negative effects myself, which is why I'll never try fasting longer than 24 hours ever again.

I'm more in favor of selective fasting, which is very good for health. Just avoiding sugar and table salt for a couple days has huge benefits.

Compared to a single episode of hypoglycemia, which is a dangerous condition that's not difficult to trigger even in normal people.
 
There are actually a lot of risks associated with not consuming food, and it doesn't have to be weeks.

Daily food consumption is part of the natural cycle. Not eating for a day is probably fine. Beyond 24 hours, caution is warranted. Blood sugar can plummet, dehydration can set in, cortisol levels can spike, sleep can be disrupted, and migraine headaches can set in.

One of the worst things I've experienced from a total food fast (3 days) was intense stomach acid. Without anything to digest, acid levels can get really high and cause vomiting, which also leads to things like dehydration.

So I'd caution saying it's "proven" to improve health and lengthen life. Depending on the individual, there are a range of issues that can crop up. Fasting from certain things (sugar, alcohol, fried food) is probably a lot safer than not eating anything for days. Avoiding food entirely is considered an extreme diet.

Not to mention, most people fast to lose weight, and it's just not an effective way of doing that.



 



I'm all for calorie restriction, sure.

Total nutritional denial though? A lot of people try diets and fasts when their blood and body chemistry would warn otherwise, no?

A lot of people run into issues just trying things like keto. Then ketosis makes it real, and not necessarily better.

There are so many individual things to remove from a diet, to me removing all the good as well as bad daily nutritional intakes...baby is still in the bathwater...where are you getting your daily magnesium, vitamin b, calcium...
 
I’m a physiologist and was a medical doctor.

You have to think about the diet of our ancestors roaming the plains of Africa. They ate the occasional berry, starchy root maybe a grub or two for most of the time…very low calories and poor nutrition. They may’ve caught a bison (after days of stalking with jogging running and walking), and gorge on protein for several days, feasting like Roman senators at an orgy and then, it’s back to relative famine for weeks perhaps months on-end. Muggles think our body’s digestive systems and requirements are like a finely tuned F1 racing car engine and that require high quality ‘fuel’. This is false. We’re more like the furnace boilers you find in old New York apartment blocks (I’m getting this from ‘Rhoda’ and ‘Friends’ 🙂) that create heat and hot water by burning any old junk thrown into it…old chair legs, table tops etc. We’ve evolved to process anything we can get our hands on. Yes, ‘refined petrol’ is easier to deal with, but we can process any old ****!

For an average American, occasionally fasting (<600kcal/24hrs) for 24-48 hrs (perhaps longer) will do no harm (unless they are on oral or injected hypoglycaemic agents) and they are well hydrated throughout the fasting period. If it feels bad, then eat. If you feel hungry, that’s normal.
 
I’m a physiologist and was a medical doctor.

You have to think about the diet of our ancestors roaming the plains of Africa. They ate the occasional berry, starchy root maybe a grub or two for most of the time…very low calories and poor nutrition. They may’ve caught a bison (after days of stalking with jogging running and walking), and gorge on protein for several days, feasting like Roman senators at an orgy and then, it’s back to relative famine for weeks perhaps months on-end. Muggles think our body’s digestive systems and requirements are like a finely tuned F1 racing car engine and that require high quality ‘fuel’. This is false. We’re more like the furnace boilers you find in old New York apartment blocks (I’m getting this from ‘Rhoda’ and ‘Friends’ 🙂) that create heat and hot water by burning any old junk thrown into it…old chair legs, table tops etc. We’ve evolved to process anything we can get our hands on. Yes, ‘refined petrol’ is easier to deal with, but we can process any old ****!

For an average American, occasionally fasting (<600kcal/24hrs) for 24-48 hrs (perhaps longer) will do no harm (unless they are on oral or injected hypoglycaemic agents) and they are well hydrated throughout the fasting period. If it feels bad, then eat. If you feel hungry, that’s normal.
So a day or two is ok for most people, and water is life.

That makes a lot of sense.

And you'd also say that this advice is for people who normally get their RDA of various stuff and aren't deficient anywhere?

A lot of people are deficient in heart healthy vitamins and minerals, and we've got a few people here with heart problems, so I was curious if you'd recommend supplements during fasting? Would that be "cheating"?
 

Latest Discussions

Back
Top