I assume that telling people they need medical guidance before doing so is a means of avoiding liability should someone do something stupid.
The only plausible risk I've seen mentioned, by Longo himself, is in women where the risk of gallstones might be increased. To quote him "Water-only fasting should only be done in a specialized clinic. Also, certain types of very low calorie diets, and particularly those with high protein content, can increase the incidence of gallstones in women at risk." [0]
The idea that water-only fasting should only be done "in a specialized clinic" seems daft to me, but in a litigious society I can understand why he says that.
Other researchers worth following in this area are Mark Mattson and Luigi Fontana.
[0] https://news.usc.edu/82959/diet-that-mimics-fasting-appears-...
In terms of results, my heart rate and BP have decreased (they weren't elevated previously). My weight remained the same as ever (around 10st, 65kg), which was my plan.
I've been fasting in other configurations for about 4.5 years now. I have a suspicion that I've been ill less (in the sense of colds etc) than pre-fasting, and that I recover more quickly, but I wouldn't take that as any kind of evidence. As soon as I can find some kind of cheap aging biomarker test, I'll start recording it regularly.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6859052 "Vigorous supplementation of a hypocaloric diet prevents cardiac arrhythmias and mineral depletion."
I wrote a comment a few months ago on fasting supplementation you may find interesting. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12455415
Also seconding the recommendations to talk to a doctor before you do anything. I know that usually goes without saying, but it deserves emphasis given the article is about diabetes. As the current top comment points out, fasting can be very dangerous for diabetics.
In particular I would like to know is it really necessary to use laxatives? Or other supplements? Or do you just stop eating and then start slowly again 5 days later.
I have just done a 3 day water fast to give it a try. With mixed results.
I would suggest starting gradually. Initially I think I did 48hr fasts. After a couple of years I upped to three days. Following Longo's stuff last year I moved to five.
No supplements. Definitely no laxatives ;-)
I don't start eating again particularly slowly. But I don't binge either.
The most amazing thing to me is that I don't get hungry. I haven't eaten since Sunday night, and I feel fine.
It's a sales pitch so obviously needs caution here, but I'm curious - what do you know about a "fasting mimicking diet"? Is it at all effective?
[edit] btw I suggest using google scholar rather than google. intermittent fasting, periodic fasting, prolonged fasting, calorie restriction. Lots of interesting stuff in there.
He (obviously) was an author, not a nutritionist or medial professional. But he was a "fasting practitioner" and has an interesting perspective on this topic.
2) Some people's blood sugar really is an issue and they can't traditionally fast without serious low blood sugar
3) People's understanding of how people lived 100 years ago let alone 10,000 years ago is minimal
/s
For someone with diabetes, an unmonitored and poorly planned fasting diet could be a recipe for disaster.
2) For diabetics, blood sugar is an issue.
3) Many diabetics do quite well understand how diabetics _died_ 100 years ago, let alone 10,000 years ago ('young'. http://www.defeatdiabetes.org/diabetes-history/: "In 1897, the average life expectancy for a 10-year-old child with diabetes is about 1 year. Diagnosis at age 30 carries a life expectancy of about 4 years. A newly diagnosed 50-year-old might live 8 more years.")
Assuming you go back to the roots and live in the forest you're also a lot more likely to die.
not having a bite for a few days or even a week won't be the cause
This is right after they talk about using it as a treatment for diabetes. If you're already diabetic, doing this as a treatment could have some risks.
Where did you get the testing equipment? I tend to get very cold if I haven't eaten recently, if I'm not active -- always have -- and it would be fascinating to see if there's a connection.
However, the discussion here is not about people with "normal" human physiology.
Remember what diabetes is: simplistically, it's the inability to properly regulate the glucose in the blood vs in the cells. Type I diabetes is an autoimmune condition that results in the destruction of the insulin-producing cells of the pancreas. Without insulin, blood glucose levels elevate but the cells of the body continue to starve.
Type I diabetics are basically trying to synthetically replace the activity that their pancreas would be performing through a combination of carefully regimented eating (including very close attention paid to carbohydrate) and blood glucose checks / insulin injections. Suddenly changing over to a fasting diet without careful supervision from a physician could be lethal for a type I diabetic.
I hope that helps clarify.
From what I understand, pollutants in food (from pesticides and other sources) and in the environment which are not easily broken down are stored by the body in fat.
Fasting or sudden weight loss can cause these toxins to be released more rapidly than would otherwise be the case. This can tax your system pretty heavily if you're obese or have a higher incidence of pollutants in your body.
Disclaimer: Not a doctor.
It seems fairly obviously no one should arbitrarily and radically do anything just because someone told them to. There are a lot of special circumstances, but thankful there are useful concepts such as personal responsibility and common sense that have generally been useful in keeping humans alive for quite a while.
Doubt I'd be able to go full-on keto and still eat dinner with my family, and the diet sounds pretty miserable anyway but I'm hoping this plus trying a fast again every week or so will get me past the problem.
Just want it to be known that, if you haven't tried it and don't know how you'll react, even a shortish fast may leave you feeling like you're an hour and a half in to a visit to a beer festival, which might be problematic if you have to actually do stuff that day. Maybe not doctor's-supervision-required, but consider doing the first couple attempts on days when you have no responsibilities (unfortunately much harder, IMO, since it's easier to fast when busy and not at home, but hey.)
And people can really die if they "go back to the roots" and start running pursuing animals.
So, when someone says: don't this radical change in your nutrition habits, people should listen carefully.
The argument that, say, "walking for six hours a day is unlikely to be dangerous, since early humans did so" may or may not be factually correct, but it's a reasoned argument.
Additionally, the example argument you make isn't an appeal to nature; The argument is based upon what early humans did (not nature, or whether something is "natural"), and is a resonable conjecture.
What I had an issue with in the parent comment was "Fasting is kinda natural" - which doesn't say anything about fasting in and of itself.
purely anecdotal but my mother has seen high levels before going to bed only to wake up dangerous low. Or the fun good level and suddenly in the morning you are at 300+. Ask three doctors at hospital and get three different opinions.
No, don't do it at home and don't do it unless monitored by a health care professional who knows how to respond.