3 ms·

Fasting is low risk in healthy populations. Let's assume you're talking about fasting as a treatment for cancer patients for the sake of argument. Let's say t

by sn9 7y ago

Fasting is low risk in healthy populations. Let's assume you're talking about fasting as a treatment for cancer patients for the sake of argument. Let's say that studies have examined the effect in 100 patients and it seems moderately effective. What's the problem? Why shouldn't everyone do it? Well the very real concern is that when they do a more rigorous study with a much greater number of patients, maybe they find that fasting actually increases the negative outcomes. The result that was found in the weaker study was only a statistical fluke. So the thing they're trying to avoid is doing more harm than the status quo. This is a very real danger and it would be irresponsible for them to not do the due diligence. Of course, that's not to say that there aren't valid criticisms of how medical treatments get validated and how quickly they can get to patients they can help.

scottLobster 7y ago
That's theoretically true, but wouldn't the fact that fasting is low-risk in healthy populations indicate that the risk is more likely to be low for populations with cancer? Also, from your example if you're one of the 100, then fasting is in fact advisable. I understand that purely for legal reasons we can't advise doctors to recommend fasting as a general guideline without gold-plated evidence. However it should be noted that just because the risk has not yet been perfectly quantified does not mean it is entirely unknown. For my part if I ever contract any sort of cancer, I will never reject a potential treatment on the grounds of "well we know it's low-risk in healthy populations, and given what we know of the biology it seems like there's some potential effectiveness. But we don't have a gold-plated-chocolate-coated mass population double-blind study for your specific cancer yet, so I'd advise against trying it". Taking minor, well-thought-out risks is the least one should do when fighting for one's life. It's a good thing doctors aren't financial advisors, or they'd tell you to avoid the S&P 500 index fund and stick to your 2% savings account.
pdonis 7y ago
These are all arguments against the medical community advising people in cancer treatment to fast. But what if the patient just fasts? Without asking the doctor's advice, and just politely saying "Yes, I hear you, but it's my decision and I think the risk is worth it" when the doctor explains the pros and cons.
- snowwrestler 7y ago
  Patients gonna do what patients gonna do; the doctor's role is to advise and treat, not control the patient's life. Doesn't mean patient has a good idea, though. I take the context of these warning comments to be a hypothetical patient who may not have been planning to fast on their own, but having read this paper, now wants to try it--i.e. a patient who may be tempted to treat this paper as medical advice. I think it's valid to point out that a single research paper does not necessarily constitute sound medical advice.

by sn9 7y ago

scottLobster 7y ago

That's theoretically true, but wouldn't the fact that fasting is low-risk in healthy populations indicate that the risk is more likely to be low for populations with cancer? Also, from your example if you're one of the 100, then fasting is in fact advisable. I understand that purely for legal reasons we can't advise doctors to recommend fasting as a general guideline without gold-plated evidence. However it should be noted that just because the risk has not yet been perfectly quantified does not mean it is entirely unknown. For my part if I ever contract any sort of cancer, I will never reject a potential treatment on the grounds of "well we know it's low-risk in healthy populations, and given what we know of the biology it seems like there's some potential effectiveness. But we don't have a gold-plated-chocolate-coated mass population double-blind study for your specific cancer yet, so I'd advise against trying it". Taking minor, well-thought-out risks is the least one should do when fighting for one's life. It's a good thing doctors aren't financial advisors, or they'd tell you to avoid the S&P 500 index fund and stick to your 2% savings account.

pdonis 7y ago

These are all arguments against the medical community advising people in cancer treatment to fast. But what if the patient just fasts? Without asking the doctor's advice, and just politely saying "Yes, I hear you, but it's my decision and I think the risk is worth it" when the doctor explains the pros and cons.

snowwrestler 7y ago
Patients gonna do what patients gonna do; the doctor's role is to advise and treat, not control the patient's life. Doesn't mean patient has a good idea, though. I take the context of these warning comments to be a hypothetical patient who may not have been planning to fast on their own, but having read this paper, now wants to try it--i.e. a patient who may be tempted to treat this paper as medical advice. I think it's valid to point out that a single research paper does not necessarily constitute sound medical advice.