Hacker News Reader

Comment by bicknergseng | Hacker News Reader

>>But I think the most sensible way forward would be to synthesize this effect with drugs.

I'm no naturopath, but something about this attitude really bugs me. I know in context he was cautioning against jumping to conclusions, but if there was a safe, low barrier to entry, non-drug way of achieving an effect, why would you encourage people to take a drug instead?

View on HN

Fasting for three days is not a safe, low barrier to entry, way. A healthy person with no critical commitments or delicate work can do it safely, but lots of people would not. Note that one side effect observed during the protocol was fainting.

And also because drugs companies can't make money out of a non-drug solution.

These were cancer patients or am I mistaken?

Is there any evidence that fasting for 3 days is not safe or is this just an assumption? As I understand it is perfectly safe for all but the most fragile people.

As long as you're in good health and stay hydrated, you can safely fast for almost 30 days.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25552155

"Conclusion: Ramadan fasting is associated with transiently impaired insulin sensitivity, compensated for by an increased p3-cell function. However, the pattern of insulin resistance-mediating adipocytokines suggests a potentially beneficial metabolic effect of Ramadan fasting."

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

"At the age of 74 and already slight of build, Mahatma Gandhi, the famous nonviolent campaigner for India's independence, survived 21 days of total starvation while only allowing himself sips of water. In a 1997 article in the British Medical Journal, Michael Peel, senior medical examiner at the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture, cites well-documented studies reporting survivals of other hunger strikers for 28, 36, 38 and 40 days."

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

"Experts believe it is possible for the human body to survive without food for up to two months."

Ramadan fasting is only during daylight hours, and is not remotely like foregoing food entirely for even 36 hours.

My understanding of nutrition regarding both intermittent and long-term (at least 6-10 days) fasting is that as long as your body can properly regulate insulin levels and you have fat reserves, you're not in danger of health issues from it. That's exactly what fat reserves are for.

A paper on obese women fasting for 6 days: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9330585

Effect of long-term fasting of obese patients on pancreatic exocrine function, gastrointestinal hormones and bicarbonate concentration in plasma (20 days): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6207670

Ramadan is fasting in the same way that only having sex at night maintains virginity.

That quote goes on to beg the question:

> "I am not sure fasting is the best idea. People are better eating on a regular basis."

The exact issue at stake is whether people are better when eating on a regular basis!

>>I'm no naturopath, but something about this attitude really bugs me.

compare profit margin of magic pill versus telling someone to make a concious effort for few days

Low barrier ? How often have you fasted for the days?

Very low barrier. Once every couple of years (For the 20 or so).

The first two days the first time you do it are a not comfortable. But other than that, it's no big deal - around the beginning of the 3rd day, you just lose your appetite and food is not appealing anymore for a while.

It only seems like insurmountable because, if the discomfort you feel for a few hours of unsatisfied appetite continued similarly (linearly, parabolically, exponentially - whichever way it feels to you), then it would actually have been insurmountable. But that's not the case.

It's like cold showers - a guy on this board, joel_runyon, advocates 40 days of only-cold showers[1] as, if I understand it correctly, part-physical-part-psychological therapy. Regardless of any specific merits, the only possible cost is a slight discomfort - yet it seems insurmountable to some people.

[1] http://impossiblehq.com/cold-showers-excuses

There's nothing inherently better about a "non-drug" method.

It tends to be cheaper?

That's not a valid generalization. In this case, negative value of the secondary health hazards, loss of enjoyment, and discomfort experienced during fasting might exceed the cost of the drug treatment.

Well, if that's your logic then un-modeled externalities and other physiological disruptions should be taken into account, which are likely to be much more salient than in the case of simply not eating.

Fasting is, in fact, about the most reasonable and conservative 'treatment' imaginable since it's been in active deployment for the last however-many million years across diverse phyla.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com