6 ms·

I would be interested in a comparison to 'total' fasting, i.e. abstaining from both solid food and liquid. This is the most commonly practiced religious practic

by aedron 8y ago

I would be interested in a comparison to 'total' fasting, i.e. abstaining from both solid food and liquid. This is the most commonly practiced religious practice (and so has a thousand year history). It would be interesting to know what the differences were, if any. In my own experience, somewhat unintuitively, total fasting is a lot easier than water-only fasting. I ascribe this to the digsetive system kind of shutting down after several hours of complete fasting. It feels like the stomach shrivels up, and hunger pangs become fewer and further between as time passes. Whereas going without proper food, but consuming water or small snacks, I feel very uncomfortable and usually get a headache.

nurettin 8y ago
Going for a long period of time without water is intuitively a bad idea for your health. I think this is the reason for this study being water-only. It also makes sense from religious perspective, since a religion will prepare you for another life which is only attainable by dying, with no apparent intention to give you a good and healthy life on Earth.
- darkerside 8y ago
  Cultural evolution suggests that, regardless of intention, these practices which have become mainstays of popular religions around the world, cover some type of benefit to survival, reproduction, or intellectual spread.
  - JulianMorrison 8y ago
    Or to spiritual practise. The idea that they have to have a mundane use strikes me as wilfully blind to their intended purpose.
    - darkerside 8y ago
      Considering the infinite variety of ways to exercise a spiritual practice, and that many (perhaps most?) of them have died out in favor of the dominant religions and spiritual practices that survive today, I'd actually say it's willfully blind to ignore the likely impact of religion on survival and reproduction. It's simple game theory. The religions that survive today outcompeted the others.
  - nurettin 8y ago
    That, or terrible peer pressure. In my opinion, Occam's razor suggests the latter.
    - darkerside 8y ago
      That's fine. I think it's just conventional wisdom that makes this seem like the "simpler" solution, and I'm a bit allergic to that, but to each their own.
- castlecrasher2 8y ago
  >It also makes sense from religious perspective, since a religion will prepare you for another life which is only attainable by dying, with no apparent intention to give you a good and healthy life on Earth. I'm not seeing the connection; religion allegedly prepares people for life after this one, so it encourages suicidal tendencies like fasting? I's biased because I'm religious and have generally fasted once a month or so, but I imagine it's more to develop delayed gratification and gain insight into the self, similar to meditation.
  - nurettin 8y ago
    I don't think any fasting or religion is needed to develop a sense for economics. According to the marshmallow test, all you need is to be born rich.
  - apta 8y ago
    His argument doesn't make sense at all. Clearly biased (not to mention ignorant) as you pointed out.
- apta 8y ago
  > It also makes sense from religious perspective, since a religion will prepare you for another life which is only attainable by dying, with no apparent intention to give you a good and healthy life on Earth. Did you study all of the religions out there to make this claim? If so, I'm interested in seeing a summary or a write up. Otherwise, do not make blanket statements full of conjectures and imply that all religions are suicide cults of some sort. The most simple way to refute this is that any religion interested in sustaining itself is not interested in harming its followers. Not to mentions some religions that establish not just dietary practices, but also financial, economic, and social practices for balance and prosperity.
  - nurettin 8y ago
    This is my life experience and deduction, you are free to refute it by example instead of trying to tell me what to say or think on the internet. Right now all I see is "you told me the truth on a subject I am sensitive about so I will say things to hurt you" I will be more than happy to relay my opinions and discuss further with a video conference if you do not find this medium adequate for discussion.
    - apta 8y ago
      A simple example (I'm sure there are many more): Islam explicitly mentions the need for balance between the Spiritual and the Worldly pursuits. For instance[1]: "You owe a duty to your Rubb (Lord), you owe a duty to your body; you owe a duty to your family; so you should give to every one his due. Abud-Darda' came to the Prophet (ﷺ) and reported the whole story. Prophet (ﷺ) said, "Salman is right". It also introduces certain rulings as to preserve social coherence and balance (e.g. outlawing interest as it is an exploitative practice that feeds on the needy, requiring a portion of each person's wealth to be distributed to charity each year, etc.). Life preservation comes first, so things that are prohibited become compulsory to sustain it (e.g. pork is prohibited, but if someone ends up in a situation where only pork is available for them to consume, otherwise they would starve to death, they are _obliged_ to consume it to sustain themselves and not die[2]). There are many more examples, but this is what came to my mind in a couple of minutes. [1] https://sunnah.com/riyadussaliheen/1/149 https://sunnah.com/riyadussaliheen/1/149 [2] https://quran.com/2/173 https://quran.com/2/173
mirceal 8y ago
you can do a water fast for weeks and you’ll mostly be fine. your body has evolved to tolerate the absence of food and actually has mechanisms to deal with it. all that fat that you’ve been storing? gonna be converted to energy through ketosis. (in case you have a very low % if body fat you will be in trouble, but this does not apply to 95% out there) if you fast totally (dry fasting) things go bad pretty quickly. Dehydration is the thing that it’s going to get you and there is a non-zero chance you are going to die because of it. Short of experimenting with this 1, maybe 2 days I would not recommend it.
JulianMorrison 8y ago
Total fasting has rather an inbuilt time limit due to medically dangerous dehydration. The usual way it is practised is for part of each day, rather than continuously. So it's not really comparable to water-only fasting that can be practised for weeks on end.
javagram 8y ago
I’m not aware of any traditional religious fast which requires abstaining from water for even a 24 hour period. Traditional eastern and western christian practices did require a fast from water before liturgies but the church services were always held at noon or before due to this. I see Ramadan does involve a fast from water, but only during daylight. Not sure about other practices. Dehydration is real and will harm and kill quickly. I wouldn’t equate small snacks with water from this perspective - maybe snacks are keeping your body from entering ketosis and burning fat efficiently, thus the headache?
- beagle3 8y ago
  The customary Jewish fast on day of atonement ("Yom Kippurim") is ~24-26 hours without food or water. Indeed, it makes no sense to me. But it does exist. An interesting side effect is an increased number of deliveries among fasting late-term pregnant women (which are not required to fast -- in fact, are required NOT to fast, but some do so anyway) -- as if there's delivery mechanism that says ("oops, mommy can't find food with you inside, perhaps if you go outside it'll work better").

by aedron 8y ago

nurettin 8y ago

Going for a long period of time without water is intuitively a bad idea for your health. I think this is the reason for this study being water-only. It also makes sense from religious perspective, since a religion will prepare you for another life which is only attainable by dying, with no apparent intention to give you a good and healthy life on Earth.

darkerside 8y ago
Cultural evolution suggests that, regardless of intention, these practices which have become mainstays of popular religions around the world, cover some type of benefit to survival, reproduction, or intellectual spread.
- JulianMorrison 8y ago
  Or to spiritual practise. The idea that they have to have a mundane use strikes me as wilfully blind to their intended purpose.
  - darkerside 8y ago
    Considering the infinite variety of ways to exercise a spiritual practice, and that many (perhaps most?) of them have died out in favor of the dominant religions and spiritual practices that survive today, I'd actually say it's willfully blind to ignore the likely impact of religion on survival and reproduction. It's simple game theory. The religions that survive today outcompeted the others.
- nurettin 8y ago
  That, or terrible peer pressure. In my opinion, Occam's razor suggests the latter.
  - darkerside 8y ago
    That's fine. I think it's just conventional wisdom that makes this seem like the "simpler" solution, and I'm a bit allergic to that, but to each their own.
castlecrasher2 8y ago
>It also makes sense from religious perspective, since a religion will prepare you for another life which is only attainable by dying, with no apparent intention to give you a good and healthy life on Earth. I'm not seeing the connection; religion allegedly prepares people for life after this one, so it encourages suicidal tendencies like fasting? I's biased because I'm religious and have generally fasted once a month or so, but I imagine it's more to develop delayed gratification and gain insight into the self, similar to meditation.
- nurettin 8y ago
  I don't think any fasting or religion is needed to develop a sense for economics. According to the marshmallow test, all you need is to be born rich.
- apta 8y ago
  His argument doesn't make sense at all. Clearly biased (not to mention ignorant) as you pointed out.
apta 8y ago
> It also makes sense from religious perspective, since a religion will prepare you for another life which is only attainable by dying, with no apparent intention to give you a good and healthy life on Earth. Did you study all of the religions out there to make this claim? If so, I'm interested in seeing a summary or a write up. Otherwise, do not make blanket statements full of conjectures and imply that all religions are suicide cults of some sort. The most simple way to refute this is that any religion interested in sustaining itself is not interested in harming its followers. Not to mentions some religions that establish not just dietary practices, but also financial, economic, and social practices for balance and prosperity.
- nurettin 8y ago
  This is my life experience and deduction, you are free to refute it by example instead of trying to tell me what to say or think on the internet. Right now all I see is "you told me the truth on a subject I am sensitive about so I will say things to hurt you" I will be more than happy to relay my opinions and discuss further with a video conference if you do not find this medium adequate for discussion.
  - apta 8y ago
    A simple example (I'm sure there are many more): Islam explicitly mentions the need for balance between the Spiritual and the Worldly pursuits. For instance[1]: "You owe a duty to your Rubb (Lord), you owe a duty to your body; you owe a duty to your family; so you should give to every one his due. Abud-Darda' came to the Prophet (ﷺ) and reported the whole story. Prophet (ﷺ) said, "Salman is right". It also introduces certain rulings as to preserve social coherence and balance (e.g. outlawing interest as it is an exploitative practice that feeds on the needy, requiring a portion of each person's wealth to be distributed to charity each year, etc.). Life preservation comes first, so things that are prohibited become compulsory to sustain it (e.g. pork is prohibited, but if someone ends up in a situation where only pork is available for them to consume, otherwise they would starve to death, they are _obliged_ to consume it to sustain themselves and not die[2]). There are many more examples, but this is what came to my mind in a couple of minutes. [1] https://sunnah.com/riyadussaliheen/1/149 https://sunnah.com/riyadussaliheen/1/149 [2] https://quran.com/2/173 https://quran.com/2/173

mirceal 8y ago

you can do a water fast for weeks and you’ll mostly be fine. your body has evolved to tolerate the absence of food and actually has mechanisms to deal with it. all that fat that you’ve been storing? gonna be converted to energy through ketosis. (in case you have a very low % if body fat you will be in trouble, but this does not apply to 95% out there) if you fast totally (dry fasting) things go bad pretty quickly. Dehydration is the thing that it’s going to get you and there is a non-zero chance you are going to die because of it. Short of experimenting with this 1, maybe 2 days I would not recommend it.

JulianMorrison 8y ago

Total fasting has rather an inbuilt time limit due to medically dangerous dehydration. The usual way it is practised is for part of each day, rather than continuously. So it's not really comparable to water-only fasting that can be practised for weeks on end.

javagram 8y ago

I’m not aware of any traditional religious fast which requires abstaining from water for even a 24 hour period. Traditional eastern and western christian practices did require a fast from water before liturgies but the church services were always held at noon or before due to this. I see Ramadan does involve a fast from water, but only during daylight. Not sure about other practices. Dehydration is real and will harm and kill quickly. I wouldn’t equate small snacks with water from this perspective - maybe snacks are keeping your body from entering ketosis and burning fat efficiently, thus the headache?

beagle3 8y ago
The customary Jewish fast on day of atonement ("Yom Kippurim") is ~24-26 hours without food or water. Indeed, it makes no sense to me. But it does exist. An interesting side effect is an increased number of deliveries among fasting late-term pregnant women (which are not required to fast -- in fact, are required NOT to fast, but some do so anyway) -- as if there's delivery mechanism that says ("oops, mommy can't find food with you inside, perhaps if you go outside it'll work better").