Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I feel that the body is wise and that it can organise itself so it gets rid of cancer or any other serious disease if we take away the initial causes of the illness.
After all, our own body got us into this state, so it should be able to get us out if only we support it by clearing away the toxins and accumulated rubbish built up over years of abuse. Of course, these causes may have been building up for many years in the way we eat and live so any remission from an illness is not going to happen overnight.
Over the years there have been many clinics which advocated fasting in various forms as a remedy for serious illness. The are supposed to have cured many people who were beyond orthodox treatment and who had been sent away to die. In these circumstances, any extension to life or remission of illness is impressive.
Mainly these clinics had to move out of the US to Mexico and other countries due to the agressive way the medical authorities persue the doctors and closed the clinics. Also there is not much money to be made from anyone who does not eat ot take medicine to cure their illness.
So, the question I have is: Given that people who are very underweight or who have psychological issues should not fast, is there any evidence that fasting in a reasonable way for the others does NOT make us healthier?
IMHO there is wayyy too much info out there on fasting to say it is safe when it may not be. Until people start fasting on a continuous and sustained basis the negative information just won't be out there.
I was fasting but I had to stop. I had pain in my back area constantly because of it. Several fasters have noted that. At the moment people do not know what was causing the pain but I feel like it is a sign from the body to stop.
I have also worried about the effect of "stress" on the human body. Cortisol etc.
We simply don't know what that will mean for people.
The problem is right now fasting itself is coming on top of living a life. If you had been fasting from the time you were a kid, fine, but to drop it right on time of things that may be happening.. may not be a good thing.
As long as you don't do it to the point of malnutrition, there shouldn't be a problem. Diabetics would be wise to monitor their blood sugar carefully, and there might be other metabolic problems which would require careful monitoring, but otherwise...
BTW, I HIGHLY doubt that the clinics you speak of were hounded out of the US solely because they advocated fasting. "Fat farms" are an american institution. It was probably OTHER things they claimed or advocated that caused their problems.
I have done several water fasts and they did not agree with me. A couple of times when I got to 5 days, the water itself made me sick. I was drinking Nestle water from these 19 liter bottles so it was supposed to be good stuff. Maybe that was because of my location and other places might have different water...
Now, however, I am eating one meal - supper, per day and this suits me. I can do this easily without any hunger or without any thinking that I am losing out. Thats 22 hours with a 2-hour eating window. The conclusion I draw from this is that you have to see what suits your temperment.
The books I have read have many papers detailing research which says that fasting is generally a good thing to do, although it is difficult to get people to go on a serious fast unless it is a religious fast - which often means no water during the fasting period too. That means there is a certain amount of dehydration as well but the period of the fast is limited to daylight I believe.
Generally, we are conditioned to have 3-6 meals a day including snacks which means the gut is continually processing food unless it is overnight and slowed down. That way of driving our body cannot be a good way, so some of what they say in these books makes sense to me.
Animals fast when they get seriously ill, which also gives me an indicator that this is perhaps a natural process to help the body get well.
My question is whether there is any research or evidence to show contraindications to fasting which I suspect there are not any. That would mean the only negative aspect is that we are not spending money to get well. To me, thats a positive thing and is how it should be.
Reviving this thread because, obviously, I am ALSO curious if there are any downsides to fasting. Personally, I find it much easier to just go "cold turkey" and abstain from food altogether for a limited period of time (drinking plenty of water, of course) than to eat several times a day, which actually triggers my temptation to eat more or different foods. Is it safe to exercise while fasting? I think we've all been conditioned to think we need to eat every few hours or we'll grow weak with hunger or faint or something but, assuming we have stored fat, won't burning that sustain us?
Have people been doing it consistently so its long term effects can be studied? Fasting has never interested me. I’m scrambling an egg as I’m walking down the stairs every morning. I can’t imagine not eating until noon or later. I certainly wouldn’t have the energy to workout.
They've been doing it for religious reasons since at least Jesus' time; likely long before that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
