Fasting triggers stem cell regeneration of damaged, old immune system (2014)

Sounds good, how old is he? 80? 90?

What he argues makes some sense, but his total dismissal of IF paired with low-carb seemed counter-productive.

"The one question that remains unanswered is whether or not the intermittent fast followed in a low-carbohydrate way will lead to these same problems. To me, that point is kind of moot. Why? Because I looked at the IF as a strategy that allowed me to eat a lot of high carb foods that I would normally avoid and not pay the health consequences for it. If I’m going to limit myself to low-carb foods, why go on the IF? I can get the same results just following a regular, whole-food, low-carb diet without having to eat only every other day."

Okay, so you only care about IF if it lets you indulge in high-carbohydrate food, so you aren't even going to try to determine if your thermogenesis argument holds for people doing both IF and low carb?

Considering I'm currently doing a low-carb diet and using mild IF (basically skipping breakfasts and not eating after ~8pm, so roughly 14-16 hours fasting most days) to try to break my weight plateaus and meet my weight loss goals, that paragraph, while valid (and I'm glad he shared it), rubbed me the wrong way and doesn't give me any information to help me determine whether I should be skipping that meal or not.

We are missing a lot of context - much of which you can't supply here even if you wanted to. For example, it seems entirely plausible and not exactly rocket science that not eating the wrong foods (for a given person - what "wrong" means may vary widely and wildly depending on their context!) is better than eating it. For an example (of the example), if you eat a lot of high glycemic index foods it's not hard to guess why your blood sugar is doing better without it.

This is the problem with all those reports from people who say they are doing so much better during a fast.

It should be noted that going from eating a lot of unhealthy food to a 24hr fast might be a little on the dangerous side for some.

The first time I tried it after about 12 or so hours I felt like I was going to pass out. So I ate something to stablize myself. After eating healthier for a while it's much easier to attempt.

Interesting 2 years ago I was up for a operation to implant a tube for dialysis after the 3 day fast before going into hospital my creatine levels improved to the point they canceled the operation.

Wonder if this will happen this time around :-)

Just a personal anecdote, but I was getting colds and flu-like symptoms several times per year for years. People I knew often commented on how often I was ill. I did a 3-day fast two years ago, and haven't had much more than a scratchy throat for about two days since. It could be coincidence, but other people have noticed and commented on my healthier state. I haven't significantly changed my behavior otherwise.

I had the same experience. I've been doing intermittent fasting for several months, and after a while I felt that hunger doesn't bother me that much anymore, so I decided to go for a three day fast. I do get slightly elevated blood pressure from time to time, but on the third day of fast I noticed that it dropped to lower than 120. I did a bit of googling, and found that there even were some medical studies looking into effect of fasting and lowering of blood pressure.

>So, mice, and people undergoing chemotherapy. Not exactly (for those who have had friends and relatives ever had to undergo chemotherapy, you will understand what I mean) the common population.

Why would it be any different for the "common population"?

>I'll pass on this intermittent fasting "fad" for now!

Fad? It's being around for millennia for.

> I'll pass on this intermittent fasting "fad" for now!

It's amazing how people are prone to experiment with this type of things. They're willing to undergo a very unpleasant experience because it might (unlikely) give them a (slight) health improvement.

It's not a fad, there is quite a wealth of research supporting it's efficacy[1][2][3]. That also doesn't mean you need to fast for 3 days straight to consider your fasting intermittent - you can go 16 hours without eating and still reap the benefits. Skip breakfast and concentrate your calories into lunch and dinner - now you are intermittent fasting.

[1] http://easacademy.org/trainer-resources/article/intermittent... (see cited sources)

[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25546413

[3] https://health.clevelandclinic.org/2015/10/interested-fastin...

"I'll pass on this intermittent fasting "fad" for now!"

Presumably you've tried it ?

That is to say, starting from a very high baseline of both cardio-vascular fitness and output as well as a high level of muscle training[1] you then tried IF and didn't notice a positive effect in your training or output ?

Fair enough. IANAD and YMMV.

[1] Since you're not going to notice the effects of marginal changes in a loosely coupled, highly variant system anyway. Adding a high flow air filter to your 1997 chrysler minivan probably won't produce noticeable results.

Well have you read the literature on calorie restriction? It increased longevity by a lot -- in mice.

So intermittent fasting also amounts to calorie restriction if you don't binge later.

Everyone's metabolism is different, though. Intermittent fasting can lead to weight loss and avoiding obesity-related problems later. Most people here, being developers or knowledge workers of some kind, probably work late and skip breakfast often, so they do it naturally.

With a "fad" like this, by the time all the research is in 100 years later, it might be too late to try. This is a life decision.

exactly what I thought when I read the article.

Ingesting anything will ruin the fast. Even brushing your teeth becomes tricky, as toothpaste can ruin everything. I ended up using a salt water solution (and an electric tooth brush) to do the job, but in hindsight, I could've used something like ToothSoap. It's extremely important to rinse the mouth thoroughly, so you don't swallow anything.

It is possible to run low on vitamins (depending on how long you go). If it's just 3-7 days, then it doesn't matter as much, but some people go a full 28 days (you can theoretically go about 40 days without causing problems, but as it will take another 40 days to break the fast, it proves to be too much for someone's first time (with 3-7 days working better)).

The step in a water fast that does most people in is the breaking of the fast. The key to a successful water fast is properly breaking the fast. It can be even more difficult, as while any hunger usually goes away within the first day or two, when the fast is first broken (with your first taste of 50% watermelon + 50% water, for example), it will kick the digestive system back into action, and you may easily become overwhelmed by an intense hunger. If you don't have the willpower to ignore this hunger, then you may end up eating something prematurely or eating too much.

The solution that works for most is to either buffer up on vitamins and minerals in the weeks leading up to the fast (which also ensures they don't have any hidden deficiencies), or to start with a juice fast (vegetables blended in a Vitamix, for example).

When I was fasting (about 2.5 weeks), I ingested nothing but water. I don't think you need to be worried about running out of essential nutrients when you are only fasting for 3 days. Personal experience, of course. No empirical evidence.

I modelled my recent 4-day fast on Dr Michael Mosley's Horizon programme [0] in which he eats nothing but a miso soup (under 50 calories) per day and drinks nothing but water. Miso soup has the added benefit of sodium and other electrolytes without any caloric impact.

I personally supplemented my water intake with peppermint tea as that has an incredibly low nutritional footprint and does not contain any extra substances such as caffeine. It's surprising how 'clinical' drinking cold water can feel after a couple of days.

Others here are saying absolutely water only. It would be really interesting for me to find out the effects of these before I fast again, as I am likely to do before the end of the year.

I also found the below article really helpful in giving me an overview.[1]

--

[0] - http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01lxyzc

[1] - http://www.yogicwayoflife.com/three-day-water-fast-and-its-b...

IANAD.

My understanding is that you are avoiding calories. More specifically, you are avoiding the bodily processes (especially insulin response, etc.) that accompany digestion.

So water, coffee and tea fit into that. Coffee or tea with milk, however, does not.

I am not sure about the vitamin supplements. Even if they are zero calorie, they have to be digested, etc., in a way that goes beyond coffee and tea ...

I would just wait until lunch/dinner, but I only IF for 16-20 hours at a time.

I did water, a zero-calorie powerade, and a few pinches of salt. Not having any calories is the goal.

I am not a doctor.

On days I don't eat, I supplement various vitamins and electrolytes to minimize risks of refeeding syndrome[0] and heart problems[1,2]. I don't know how bad the risks are in practice for these for short fasts (I've only gone up to 3 days), but I am sufficiently paranoid that I supplement anyway. Supplementing electrolytes also means I don't get headaches, restless leg syndrome, or (as much) weak feeling in muscles, all of which I used to get when I tried unsupplemented water fasting.

I also try to break the fast with skim milk or yoghurt so that I'm not phosphate depleted (refeeding syndrome again).

For what it's worth, my supplement regime amounts to: a generic A-Z multivitamin, 800mg potassium chloride, 300mg magnesium citrate (it seems to be important that it's citrate for bioavailability reasons), 800mg calcium, and a B-vitamin complex (as I remember it, vitamin B1, or thiamine, is important when refeeding, for reasons I can no longer find).

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refeeding_syndrome

[1] http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/34/4/453.short

[2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6859052

I have fasted for approximately a week on 4 different occasions and interestingly enough the 72 hours that you mentioned are indeed the hardest. For me personally it started getting easier at that specific 72 hour mark.

In regards to the multiple 24 hours fast I was wondering the same thing reading this article. Although I think it might not work because of the white blood cells regenerating.

I regularly fast for 20+ hours (calorie restriction, I do drink water because I am not an idiot) once or twice a week. You get very used to it.

While its not something I look forward to, it's purely psychological. A few hours after I miss 'breakfast' my tummy rumbles two or three times and then my body doesn't care anymore.

The max time I've fasted is forty hours and I have to say if you can get past the first fours hours, it's easy. I didn't really plan to fast that long, circumstances led to it. I actually found it hard to eat after it. I normally eat a very small 500-600 calorie meal after a fast but I couldn't finish it after the long fast.

I think we underestimate how adaptable our body is and how intermittent fasting is actually the norm for most mammals.

If you're going to do shorter fasts, you may as well just eat within the same 8-hour window each day. That approach can be even more beneficial than skipping meals for one day each week. After doing this for a while (and ensuring you don't have any nutrient deficiencies), a water fast shouldn't be that difficult. If it is, then you can transition into it with a juice fast.

I don't like doing shorter fasts because you only experience the worst part of them. The first 3-4 days are the worst and then everything clears (pre-existing conditions in skin/joints/intestine, mind fogginess, etc). Going out of the fast is a good time to experiment with food/situations and see what could be causing some of the issues you've been experiencing (if any).

I usually go for a 7-day water fast twice a year (and just completed one a few weeks ago). The results are obvious to me. YMMV.

Mandatory warning: I'm not a doctor and this is not medical advice. Talk to your doctor.

Are there long term studies of the health effects of blood donation?

I wonder if there's a way to have a control group that thinks they donated, but didn't. Fake blood pack maybe?

Unless the act of donating blood releases some endorphins because you're helping someone else, then this is just bloodletting or phlebotomy, which is considered pseudoscience by the medical community.

[1] https://books.google.com/books?id=vH1EAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT293&dq=b...

There is some evidence to indicate that high iron levels are a risk factor in heart disease. And thus donating blood could help lower that risk for some people. However I don't think any sort of "boost" effect has ever been demonstrated.

http://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/news/20001025/too-much-ir...

as seen in 1400.

I suppose not, but the lack of specification which method of fasting was used is the most glaring omission in this piece.

Probably there is some minimum, because when you drink just regular water that has some calories as well. And not drinking for a day might be he worst dietary idea ever.

UPDATE: Water doesn't contain calories. Sorry for the misinformation.

My mouth (actually my hands) was faster then my brain. :-)

About 3 years ago, I undertook a water fast that lasted about 17 days. It does take a lot of mental preparation. Nutrition wise, I ate only fruits for about a week before the fast. The first few days were very hard, but then I simply did not feel hunger at all. I intended to continue the fast for 30 days. But from about the 4th day onwards my mouth started having an awful odour and my tongue had a thick white coating that was the source. Into the third week, I simply couldn't bear that smell anymore and gave up. for getting back to regular food, I did the same thing and had only juices and fruits for about 3-4 days.

Now, I'm not an expert, but I read while preparing for the water fast that your body has nutrients it needs to survive for a few weeks. I didn't take any supplements during that time. Unfortunately, at that time i didn't have the means to measure and quantify what changed after the fast. I do remember being in a great mood for a few days after the fast. I don't know how much it benefited me, but it was an interesting exercise

Thanks to blue1 who found the original paper (http://www.cell.com/cell-stem-cell/fulltext/S1934-5909%2814%...), I found this in the comments section: "In this study, the mice were allowed to drink water, but no food was allowed. In general, when limited food & water are allowed, the protocol is referred to as a "fasting-mimicking diet""

So no food, but water was allowed.

Just remember the context: the mice were subjected to chemotherapy schedules... so it's not like "hey take healthy mice, fast them and see them get healthy", but more like "hey take healthy mice, fast them, subject them to chemotherapy, and look... their immune system responds better than if we allowed them to eat pre-chemo" (apologies if I summarised this wrong)

If you have regularly eaten well for some time before (i.e. no junk food but real food) you probably (?) have a sufficient store of nutrients to keep your system running for 72 hours.

The important question to me: Does drinking coffee (black without sugar naturally) blow the supposedly positive effects of the fast?

It's not that hard. If you're going to do three days you might as well do a little longer. It takes around three days to switch to ketosis, after which hunger disappears. I did a week with just a sense of determination and knowledge of what to expect, and my relationship with food improved immensely.

There is a lot of evidence that the human body can survive for much, much longer than 72 hours without food:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-can-a-per...

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-17095605

The first article mentions someone going for 73 days without food, the second 66 days, and many others for shorter periods (but still on the order of multiple tens of days).

Some examples:

"In the 1940s, Mahatma Gandhi survived 21 days on sips of water during a display of civil disobedience."

"Dr Mike Stroud, senior lecturer of Medicine and Nutrition at Southampton University ... who accompanied veteran British adventurer Sir Ranulph Fiennes across the Antarctic, said it was possible to survive 60 days without food."

"In 1981, Republican prisoner Bobby Sands died in Northern Ireland's Maze prison after a hunger strike lasting 66 days."

Of course many factors may influence how long you can go without food, such as the amount of physical activity you engage in. If you're running marathons every day, you're naturally not going to be able to go without food as long as someone who's immobile the whole time, etc.

You weren't very toxic?

You didn't consume anything but water for five consecutive days?

I also don't undertake what you mean by, "I wasn't very toxic."

Well it's pretty much for any mammal except type-1 diabetics --- plus folks taking medication for blood sugar / insulin regulation without informing themselves thoroughly beforehand and monitoring carefully.

It is indeed a fascinating discovery. BTW, fasting for more than three days sounds crazy but can be surprisingly easy.

Interesting, why isn't it as popular as Ramadan? I could barely find anything about it online.

Scientific study proves (and sometimes doesn't) thing we take as common sense. Recently there was a study that dogs understood us more than was previously thought. Which wasn't a shocker but you have a camp of folks saying dogs understand nothing and another camp that continuously speak to their dogs. The scientific study just adds empirical proof.

If we were to take everything religion brings to the table seriously we'd be in a big mess.

You don't need to consume any. For a normal water fast where you don't exercise, everything you need is taken from the liver and fat.

Somewhat off topic, but a few friends now seem to have great success using Oil Pulling to combat gum disease so might be worth looking into (obviously keep brushing/flossing etc). I've started doing it on my drive to work which has the added bonus of stopping me smoking as much.

It's interesting you brought this up. I used to skip breakfast all the time being a late riser. My gums were in a terrible shape with constant flare ups. I couldn't figure out why since I don't smoke. A few months ago I started eating breakfast regularly and I've noticed marked improvement. Obviously this is just my personal experience and YMMV.

Likely deadly in case of AIDS. Initial stage of the fast lowers immunity a lot. Body reacts by lowering metabolism via parathyroid suppression among other things.