6 ms·

Besides the proposed health benefits, it is worth also considering the effects on mental/emotional state. It is probably no coincidence that fasting is an eleme

Besides the proposed health benefits, it is worth also considering the effects on mental/emotional state. It is probably no coincidence that fasting is an element of practically every traditional religious and spiritual practice. As an example, in Islam the recommended practice is to fast two times a week (consistent with the regimen the OP discusses). Things that work well for the physical body usually has a corollary beneficial effect on mental state, which is no less of an upside than the health benefits.

hoers 11y ago
In this case it seems to be even more than 'just' corollary, there are tons of papers being published about the connection between inflammation (which fasting seems to mediate very effectively) and a whole array of mental diseases
4ydx 11y ago
Whether or not it is a coincidence mentioning religion adds nothing to the conversation.
- pennaMan 11y ago
  I disagree. It's worth mentioning simply because the practice has survived a long time trough many cultures. Time is a really good curator - if something survives a really long time (thousand of years scale) it is very likely to be of use.
  - dylanjermiah 11y ago
    >Time is a really good curator - if something survives a really long time (thousand of years scale) it is very likely to be of use. Do you have any evidence to support this theory? I very much doubt this holds any truth. Time is not an indication of truth, empirical evidence is.
    - mfringel 11y ago
      How is "a practice that has been sustained across multiple cultures over thousands of years" not empirical evidence?
      - dylanjermiah 11y ago
        The fact that people have being doing the same thing over a certain period of time makes no indication to the effectiveness of the activity. People have being praying for thousands of years, yet I have seen no conclusive evidence of its effectiveness.
        pennaMan 11y ago
        Consider an ailment like a mild flu. What's more beneficial? Going to the temple and asking a man in the sky to heal you or going to someone who calls himself a doctor who performs something way more harmful than the mild sickness like bloodletting or prescribing antibiotics? In that sense, "praying" or, more accurately described, "letting nature take its course" has ample evidence of effectiveness.
        dylanjermiah 11y ago
        It has less detrimental effects as opposed to an inferior alternative, yes. The question I was asking, and which your response does not address, is whether or not a certain activity that claims to be beneficial becomes beneficial purely on the basis that it is practiced over 'x' period of time. Which I do not believe to be true. If you have evidence to the contrary, please post it.
        pennaMan 11y ago
        Surviving the test of time is the ultimate empirical evidence. In fact I'd go so far to say it's the ONLY way we can test the truth of anything at all. This goes for anything, from biological systems (evolution), technical design - the wheel, to research papers. Look in your fridge: most of the food there has been consumed for thousands of years using basically the same cooking method and is for the most part considered healthy. The recent synthetic foods like margarine and recent cooking methods like deep frying are detrimental to health. Keep in mind, practiced over 'x' amount of time where x > 2000 years.
  - jdmichal 11y ago
    > Time is a really good curator - if something survives a really long time (thousand of years scale) it is very likely to be of use. This is actually one of the fallacies related to evolution. Selection only happens against negative pressure, not for positive pressure. In other words, adaptation generally only happens for things which harm survival. Things which are neutral or even benefit survival are not selected for. Therefore, the proper statement to make would be more along the lines of, "Well, it can't hurt too much."
    - cma 11y ago
      Sexual selection can be much more powerful than ordinary survival selection (see: peacock tails).
      - jdmichal 11y ago
        True. Instances of "survival" in my original statement should probably be read as "reproduction". There are, of course, more selection criteria available than just "survival to reproduction age". And selections can work opposing each other. But, in all, the original statement still stands: Selections only work negatively. That is, a peacock with better plumage might get more chances of reproducing due to sexual selection, but as long as he gets at least one chance of reproduction, he has not been selected against.
        cma 11y ago
        Reproduction causes a loss of half of the chromosomes. If he only has one offspring (unless it is a lot more sexually successful than him), his line dies out. Different organisms have evolved different reproduction strategies through selection: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory
        jdmichal 11y ago
        You're being pretty pedantic at this point. If an individual reproduces, then none of that individual's traits were sufficiently selected against. That's also not a guarantee that all their traits will carry on in new lines. There's also no guarantee that their children will be fit, due to differing traits or changing environment.
- aaron695 11y ago
  I think it does because it's evidence it's a brain hack of some sort.
- 4ydx 11y ago
  "As an example, in Islam the recommended practice is to fast two times a week (consistent with the regimen the OP discusses)." I was simply trying to point out that this sort of phrasing is constantly being used in a religious context to try to create an argument for the whole of the religion rather than to just stop at "here is something about my culture that might work". These things are constantly being conflated as being scientific evidences of the "deeper" truth lying within religion. Before you know it they become yet another thing that people brow beat as they try to convert the people around them. It simply isn't an interesting argument from my point of view.

hoers 11y ago

In this case it seems to be even more than 'just' corollary, there are tons of papers being published about the connection between inflammation (which fasting seems to mediate very effectively) and a whole array of mental diseases

4ydx 11y ago

Whether or not it is a coincidence mentioning religion adds nothing to the conversation.

pennaMan 11y ago
I disagree. It's worth mentioning simply because the practice has survived a long time trough many cultures. Time is a really good curator - if something survives a really long time (thousand of years scale) it is very likely to be of use.
- dylanjermiah 11y ago
  >Time is a really good curator - if something survives a really long time (thousand of years scale) it is very likely to be of use. Do you have any evidence to support this theory? I very much doubt this holds any truth. Time is not an indication of truth, empirical evidence is.
  - mfringel 11y ago
    How is "a practice that has been sustained across multiple cultures over thousands of years" not empirical evidence?
    - dylanjermiah 11y ago
      The fact that people have being doing the same thing over a certain period of time makes no indication to the effectiveness of the activity. People have being praying for thousands of years, yet I have seen no conclusive evidence of its effectiveness.
      - pennaMan 11y ago
        Consider an ailment like a mild flu. What's more beneficial? Going to the temple and asking a man in the sky to heal you or going to someone who calls himself a doctor who performs something way more harmful than the mild sickness like bloodletting or prescribing antibiotics? In that sense, "praying" or, more accurately described, "letting nature take its course" has ample evidence of effectiveness.
        dylanjermiah 11y ago
        It has less detrimental effects as opposed to an inferior alternative, yes. The question I was asking, and which your response does not address, is whether or not a certain activity that claims to be beneficial becomes beneficial purely on the basis that it is practiced over 'x' period of time. Which I do not believe to be true. If you have evidence to the contrary, please post it.
        pennaMan 11y ago
        Surviving the test of time is the ultimate empirical evidence. In fact I'd go so far to say it's the ONLY way we can test the truth of anything at all. This goes for anything, from biological systems (evolution), technical design - the wheel, to research papers. Look in your fridge: most of the food there has been consumed for thousands of years using basically the same cooking method and is for the most part considered healthy. The recent synthetic foods like margarine and recent cooking methods like deep frying are detrimental to health. Keep in mind, practiced over 'x' amount of time where x > 2000 years.
- jdmichal 11y ago
  > Time is a really good curator - if something survives a really long time (thousand of years scale) it is very likely to be of use. This is actually one of the fallacies related to evolution. Selection only happens against negative pressure, not for positive pressure. In other words, adaptation generally only happens for things which harm survival. Things which are neutral or even benefit survival are not selected for. Therefore, the proper statement to make would be more along the lines of, "Well, it can't hurt too much."
  - cma 11y ago
    Sexual selection can be much more powerful than ordinary survival selection (see: peacock tails).
    - jdmichal 11y ago
      True. Instances of "survival" in my original statement should probably be read as "reproduction". There are, of course, more selection criteria available than just "survival to reproduction age". And selections can work opposing each other. But, in all, the original statement still stands: Selections only work negatively. That is, a peacock with better plumage might get more chances of reproducing due to sexual selection, but as long as he gets at least one chance of reproduction, he has not been selected against.
      - cma 11y ago
        Reproduction causes a loss of half of the chromosomes. If he only has one offspring (unless it is a lot more sexually successful than him), his line dies out. Different organisms have evolved different reproduction strategies through selection: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory
        jdmichal 11y ago
        You're being pretty pedantic at this point. If an individual reproduces, then none of that individual's traits were sufficiently selected against. That's also not a guarantee that all their traits will carry on in new lines. There's also no guarantee that their children will be fit, due to differing traits or changing environment.
aaron695 11y ago
I think it does because it's evidence it's a brain hack of some sort.
4ydx 11y ago
"As an example, in Islam the recommended practice is to fast two times a week (consistent with the regimen the OP discusses)." I was simply trying to point out that this sort of phrasing is constantly being used in a religious context to try to create an argument for the whole of the religion rather than to just stop at "here is something about my culture that might work". These things are constantly being conflated as being scientific evidences of the "deeper" truth lying within religion. Before you know it they become yet another thing that people brow beat as they try to convert the people around them. It simply isn't an interesting argument from my point of view.