Fasting for three days can regenerate entire immune system
 

What?I guess three days wouldn't hurt most of us, but I'm not buying this without a lot more evidence. I suspect what The Telegraph printed was what the reporter interpreted from a report they couldn't really comprehend.

I was just about to delete this thread as spam, til I saw the OP!

Ah, you've found me out, an agent of The Telegraph all along. :lol2:

I call bullshit. And completely agree with your assessment, Bruce.

A little digging shows that most research on this appears to cover long term fasting. Fasting 3-4 days at a time regularly can have the benefits they describe. Maybe doing it once can help, but you are supposed to starve yourself often for it to really work, based on my 10 minutes of searching.

So, should I fast 3-4 days out of the week?

Don't you dare! I need you around.

When I was in my 20s I used to detox one day a week.
Water and fruit only.
It made me so irritable even by lunchtime. And by the evening I would have been genocidal if I hadn't had such a crashing headache. Found it hard to sleep too, despite being exhausted from mid-afternoon onwards.

My poor husband called them Black Wednesdays.

My work colleague/ partner in crime said it was the toxins coming out, although about a year after I gave them up she admitted she'd only managed two weeks without cheating in the six months we did it together.

Knowing what I know now, I think the heachaches and mood swings came from overdosing on fruit sugar and the energy troughs from carbs.

The moral of the story?
Don't trust a bulimic friend with no evidence to back up her claims.

Fasting has a lot of well-documented benefits. Unfortunately, most of us can't slow down enough to really benefit from it.

As an Orthodox Christian I fasted for years - too many details that will bore everyone, as most 'fasting' days are actually vegan days, but there are times that observant Orthodox truly go without all food (and water, for the advanced) for a number of days. And then eat vegan, once daily, for a number of weeks. People don't die from this.* We can get along on much less than we think.** ;)

Then I lost faith, lost sight of a lot of stuff, stopped fasting for a few years. Diagnosed with cancer. Lesson?

No lesson. Cancer happens. Maybe I would've been diagnosed much earlier without the fasting, but who knows?


*providing they weren't cachectic already.
**there's a news special available on youtube about an Orthodox monastery on Mt. Athos; the monks are physically active, eat a plain meal of vegetables twice daily, and there is nothing for the MD/monk to do. No cancer, no heart disease, no diabetes, nothin'. Just monks who live to be ridiculously old and then die peacefully. Of course, ymmv.

Most of us couldn't even begin to document all the changes in our lives. Peoples lives are so complicated, make so many twists and turns, I don't see how anyone can look back and say, See, that right there is why you got cancer.

If you smoke, there's a much higher chance of lung cancer. But many smoke and don't get it. That would make me think there may be some smokers with lung cancer that wasn't caused by the smoking.

Maybe if you spent your whole life in the same village, eating the same diet, keeping the same routine, there might be a clue. Even then, same village, same foods, changes in the environment can mean those foods aren't really the same as your grandparents ate.

The epidemiological evidence is in, and it's clear: smoking does indeed cause lung cancer. A (perhaps) interesting anecdote: when I was in medical school in Toronto, one of my professors told a story about being called to see a patient in the 1920s who had lung cancer. All of the house staff and students were called to see this patient, because he had an incredibly rare disease that they probably wouldn't ever see again in their lives.

That would have been a logical assumption given the disease prevalence at the time, but not so much given the relatively recent change in human habits.

All of which is to say that, while many changes have occurred in our lives, diets, habits, and styles of living, it is possible to make meaningful conclusions from good epidemiological data. The data connecting smoking and lung cancer were always epidemiological. All correct. We can make meaningful conclusions and take steps to protect the health of others in the future.

It's not as hopeless as some feel, when confronted with the latest epidemiological study. There are limitations, but there are also useful conclusions to be made.

My dad died at age 38 from lung cancer. He never smoked. It was probably flake asbestos.

Your Mom should collect from the $30 Billion Mesothelioma trust fund. It's easy, says so right on the TV. Would Canwe, Fuckem and Howe lie to us? :rolleyes:

Oh yeah? Well YOUR mom...