4 ms·

In no way is fasting healthy for you if you rely on having energy, focus, or any ability to function as an independent adult while fasting for more than a day o

In no way is fasting healthy for you if you rely on having energy, focus, or any ability to function as an independent adult while fasting for more than a day or so at most.

JenrHywy 7y ago
That's not my experience. I've done a few 72hr fasts, and many 48hrs fasts. In general I find I have more focus, more even mood and more enthusiasm (though less energy for physical activity) while fasting.
- GordonS 7y ago
  I was going to say something similar. I've fasted for up to 5 days before, and I felt just fine - especially on days 4 and 5, I actually feel like I have more mental clarity and drive than usual.
- loeg 7y ago
  If you don't mind sharing, what kind of starting body fat % (or as a poor proxy, BMI), did you have at the beginning of your multiday fasts? I don't care about the literal numbers, but: bottom of healthy range? Mid-healthy range? Above healthy range? Do you exercise regularly (and did you keep it up during the fasts)? I guess this is always my question of anyone who has a positive experience with fasts. Personally, I have been at the mid-upper range of healthy bf%/weight for years and exercise frequently (running 30+ minutes 7 days a week for a few years, cycling 60+ minutes 2-3 a week this year) and find much shorter fasts (say, 20h) excruciating and completely draining mentally and physically. And I'm not at 7% body fat like that other guy. Lowest I got was maybe 14% while I was running daily; while I'm up to 18%ish now, fasting hasn't gotten any easier. (Even if I skipped exercising, just the mental effects made my mood significantly worse by the end of the day, which makes it harder to work effectively in a collaborative environment.)
  - JenrHywy 7y ago
    I'd say that I'm in a similar position to you, though not as fit. I do a short HIIT session every day and am marginally chubby. What's your non-fasting diet like? Fasting is the quickest way to get into ketosis. If you're used to eating a carb-heavy diet, the switch into ketosis can be brutal. So if you either ease off carbs leading up to the fast, or just all the time, it'll be easier. The other thing is electrolytes. Your body doesn't store them, so you (IMO) have to supplement. If you start to feel like crap, have 1tsp of salt in about 1L of water and see if it fixes it. I also supplement with magnesium and occasionally potassium.
not_a_moth 7y ago
You're arguing against evolution. Not only are we deeply wired to function for long periods of time without food, but when you haven't eaten in a while your mind becomes focused and alert since your body thinks it needs to find or hunt food. I'm sure Dorsey isn't the only high profile/ functioning CEO who does multi day fasts each week.
- diminoten 7y ago
  What you've written here sounds a lot like the utter pablum that comes from the marketing literature of every fad diet on this planet. Besides, how CEOs behave and what is sane are not overlapping circles if you're trying to draw a Venn diagram relating the two...
- Cougher 7y ago
  Who's arguing against evolution? Humans evolved to use our brains to help us develop ways to prevent having to go without food for extended periods of time. "Not only are we deeply wired to function for long periods of time without food" So the body doesn't collapse after x number of hours without fuel. Your body also has the ability to generate its own heat when it's cold. Does that mean that it's desirable or ideal that we deliberately use these abilities? Does it mean that there is no harm or risk in doing so? I'm not saying that there is or isn't; I don't know. "but when you haven't eaten in a while your mind becomes focused and alert" This is sort of like the focus that you get when you're being chased by a wild animal or falling out of a tree. I don't know that seeking focus from sources like this is a great idea, but YMMV. "since your body thinks it needs to find or hunt food." So maybe your body is telling you that fasting isn't such a good idea? "I'm sure Dorsey isn't the only high profile/ functioning CEO who does multi day fasts each week." I don't do multi-day fasts and I've lived for years longer than Dorsey.
  - not_a_moth 7y ago
    I hear your perspective. The evolutionary angle isn't the reason why I believe fasting is a good idea - it's just a rebuttle to "there's no way you function well while fasting"... of course you can, it was likely the MO for millions of years of modern human evolution (or 100+ M years for mammals). It's as natural to fast as it is to fornicate. Rather, my reasons for fasting come from the scientific literature, centered around autophagy, insulin control, sirtuin activation, visceral (organ) fat depletion, and troves of clear lab test results of benefits (albeit most on non human mammals). Based on many comments here I think folks just haven't caught up with the longevity research of the last 3-4 years.
nverno 7y ago
Not my experience, having fasted periodically (2-5 day fasts) for years. It's absurd to think everybody reacts the same to fasting given the range of bodyweights/types out there. This article is evidence this is not the case.
- diminoten 7y ago
  To you and others who are giving their personal experience, you're aware how useless anecdata is when trying to determine general medical advice, right? I get how you were attracted to my "no one" statement, but think a bit about what I could have possibly meant. Do you think I meant, "LITERALLY NO ONE IN HUMAN HISTORY HAS SUCCESSFULLY FASTED"? Or did I mean, "On average, a person who doesn't eat for a longer period of time will tend to have a lower performance mentally and physically than a person who does eat regularly."? And if you think I meant the latter, why do you believe your personal experience is relevant?
  - loeg 7y ago
    Your earlier comment came across as a pretty literal blanket statement for me, FWIW. > In no way is fasting healthy … while fasting for more than a day or so at most. The italicized portions are both qualifiers that suggest / reinforce something like "literally no one in human history has successfully fasted." If you meant "On average, low blood sugar will cause lower metal and physical performance," just say it. Sarcasm and hyperbole don't come across clearly on the internet. It's much easier and more considerate to write what you mean the first time, rather than writing a hyperbolic and simplistic statement and then retroactively rationalizing it.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - diminoten 7y ago
      I did write what I meant; there's simply no way, on average, fasting has zero negative side effects. That's what I wrote. The fact that you or others couldn't navigate your way to that conclusion is on you, not me. And I did want to come across as sarcastic and condescending because it's frankly insulting to others when you claim such outrageous and wrong nonsense on the internet. You deserve sarcasm and negativity if you bring idiocy to a reasonable conversation.

In no way is fasting healthy for you if you rely on having energy, focus, or any ability to function as an independent adult while fasting for more than a day or so at most.

JenrHywy 7y ago

That's not my experience. I've done a few 72hr fasts, and many 48hrs fasts. In general I find I have more focus, more even mood and more enthusiasm (though less energy for physical activity) while fasting.

GordonS 7y ago
I was going to say something similar. I've fasted for up to 5 days before, and I felt just fine - especially on days 4 and 5, I actually feel like I have more mental clarity and drive than usual.
loeg 7y ago
If you don't mind sharing, what kind of starting body fat % (or as a poor proxy, BMI), did you have at the beginning of your multiday fasts? I don't care about the literal numbers, but: bottom of healthy range? Mid-healthy range? Above healthy range? Do you exercise regularly (and did you keep it up during the fasts)? I guess this is always my question of anyone who has a positive experience with fasts. Personally, I have been at the mid-upper range of healthy bf%/weight for years and exercise frequently (running 30+ minutes 7 days a week for a few years, cycling 60+ minutes 2-3 a week this year) and find much shorter fasts (say, 20h) excruciating and completely draining mentally and physically. And I'm not at 7% body fat like that other guy. Lowest I got was maybe 14% while I was running daily; while I'm up to 18%ish now, fasting hasn't gotten any easier. (Even if I skipped exercising, just the mental effects made my mood significantly worse by the end of the day, which makes it harder to work effectively in a collaborative environment.)
- JenrHywy 7y ago
  I'd say that I'm in a similar position to you, though not as fit. I do a short HIIT session every day and am marginally chubby. What's your non-fasting diet like? Fasting is the quickest way to get into ketosis. If you're used to eating a carb-heavy diet, the switch into ketosis can be brutal. So if you either ease off carbs leading up to the fast, or just all the time, it'll be easier. The other thing is electrolytes. Your body doesn't store them, so you (IMO) have to supplement. If you start to feel like crap, have 1tsp of salt in about 1L of water and see if it fixes it. I also supplement with magnesium and occasionally potassium.

not_a_moth 7y ago

You're arguing against evolution. Not only are we deeply wired to function for long periods of time without food, but when you haven't eaten in a while your mind becomes focused and alert since your body thinks it needs to find or hunt food. I'm sure Dorsey isn't the only high profile/ functioning CEO who does multi day fasts each week.

diminoten 7y ago
What you've written here sounds a lot like the utter pablum that comes from the marketing literature of every fad diet on this planet. Besides, how CEOs behave and what is sane are not overlapping circles if you're trying to draw a Venn diagram relating the two...
Cougher 7y ago
Who's arguing against evolution? Humans evolved to use our brains to help us develop ways to prevent having to go without food for extended periods of time. "Not only are we deeply wired to function for long periods of time without food" So the body doesn't collapse after x number of hours without fuel. Your body also has the ability to generate its own heat when it's cold. Does that mean that it's desirable or ideal that we deliberately use these abilities? Does it mean that there is no harm or risk in doing so? I'm not saying that there is or isn't; I don't know. "but when you haven't eaten in a while your mind becomes focused and alert" This is sort of like the focus that you get when you're being chased by a wild animal or falling out of a tree. I don't know that seeking focus from sources like this is a great idea, but YMMV. "since your body thinks it needs to find or hunt food." So maybe your body is telling you that fasting isn't such a good idea? "I'm sure Dorsey isn't the only high profile/ functioning CEO who does multi day fasts each week." I don't do multi-day fasts and I've lived for years longer than Dorsey.
- not_a_moth 7y ago
  I hear your perspective. The evolutionary angle isn't the reason why I believe fasting is a good idea - it's just a rebuttle to "there's no way you function well while fasting"... of course you can, it was likely the MO for millions of years of modern human evolution (or 100+ M years for mammals). It's as natural to fast as it is to fornicate. Rather, my reasons for fasting come from the scientific literature, centered around autophagy, insulin control, sirtuin activation, visceral (organ) fat depletion, and troves of clear lab test results of benefits (albeit most on non human mammals). Based on many comments here I think folks just haven't caught up with the longevity research of the last 3-4 years.

nverno 7y ago

Not my experience, having fasted periodically (2-5 day fasts) for years. It's absurd to think everybody reacts the same to fasting given the range of bodyweights/types out there. This article is evidence this is not the case.

diminoten 7y ago
To you and others who are giving their personal experience, you're aware how useless anecdata is when trying to determine general medical advice, right? I get how you were attracted to my "no one" statement, but think a bit about what I could have possibly meant. Do you think I meant, "LITERALLY NO ONE IN HUMAN HISTORY HAS SUCCESSFULLY FASTED"? Or did I mean, "On average, a person who doesn't eat for a longer period of time will tend to have a lower performance mentally and physically than a person who does eat regularly."? And if you think I meant the latter, why do you believe your personal experience is relevant?
- loeg 7y ago
  Your earlier comment came across as a pretty literal blanket statement for me, FWIW. > In no way is fasting healthy … while fasting for more than a day or so at most. The italicized portions are both qualifiers that suggest / reinforce something like "literally no one in human history has successfully fasted." If you meant "On average, low blood sugar will cause lower metal and physical performance," just say it. Sarcasm and hyperbole don't come across clearly on the internet. It's much easier and more considerate to write what you mean the first time, rather than writing a hyperbolic and simplistic statement and then retroactively rationalizing it.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - diminoten 7y ago
    I did write what I meant; there's simply no way, on average, fasting has zero negative side effects. That's what I wrote. The fact that you or others couldn't navigate your way to that conclusion is on you, not me. And I did want to come across as sarcastic and condescending because it's frankly insulting to others when you claim such outrageous and wrong nonsense on the internet. You deserve sarcasm and negativity if you bring idiocy to a reasonable conversation.