One-day fast

Shelga

Is there any point in fasting for a day? I read somewhere that it allows the body to take a 'rest' and cleanse itself, as it were. Might be complete bulls**t but thinking of doing it tomorrow, as I ate waaaaay too much food today and just thought it might be good to 'kickstart' things as it were. I am health-conscious though so would not be doing it to lose weight or anything, just give my digestive system a rest!

(Healthy) food would be consumed again at regular intervals on Monday, of course. Thoughts?

watna

My mother-in-law does regular fasts and swears by them - but then she is crazy and they are partly for religious reasons!

As far as I know, scientifically, it's not a good idea as your body goes in to starvation mode and when you eat again stores more fat in case you starve it again.

I tried to tell her this and she was not impressed!

Sapsorrow

watna wrote: »

As far as I know, scientifically, it's not a good idea as your body goes in to starvation mode and when you eat again stores more fat in case you starve it again.

Thats debatable. Some discussion of it in these posts in particular the comments, thanks again Temple for showing me these brillliant articles!

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2009/12/body-fat-setpoint.html

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2010/01/body-fat-setpoint-part-ii-mechanisms-of.html

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2010/01/body-fat-setpoint-part-iii-dietary.html

A day isn't long enough for your metabolism to shift significantly and cause weight gain. it isn't a bad idea to give your body a chance to catch up on it's jobs. Only fast when you can have a quite day at home resting though and don't try and exercise or do anything strenuous. Drink plenty of fluid too but not fruit juices.

EileenG

A one day fast won't do you any harm. There is a swing to thinking that the occasional short fast is better then the "detoxes" where you live on water and raw fruit for a fortnight.

Just don't come off your fast by celebrating in McDonalds.

rubadub

I have read it could produce similar results as calorie restriction, which is said to prolong lifespan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie_restriction#Intermittent_fasting_as_an_alternative_approach

El_Dangeroso

I'm a huge fan of an odd fast, it induces this process called 'muscular autophagy' which basically allows your body to clean up junk proteins, it's renewing yourself from the inside out. Weight training does this too, if you can lift during a fast, all the better!

There must be a reason why a lot of cultures have a tradition of fasting, whether it be religious or otherwise.

I wouldn't start with a 24hr one straight off unless you like feeling dizzy and starving. My suggestion would be to start with 14hrs overnight (basically early dinner and late breakfast). Then the next time work up to 18hrs, then 20, then 24. Much easier that way and your body doesn't get a big shock all at once.

corkcomp

there is nothing really wrong with a 24 hour fast, but by the same token, you dont NEED to do one. if you are trying to compensate for the mistakes of the last day / week then just cut back on cals and eat clean, no need to actually stop eating. now, im not one of those people who say you need to eat six meals a day to keep your metabolism going, but I do believe that going very long periods of time without food wont help your metabolism.

Shelga

Thanks guys, failed at the first sign of hunger yesterday so might try a 12 or 18 hour fast to begin with, as was suggested. Or maybe have my usual eggs in the morning and not eat anything til the next day? Might try it this Sunday.

g'em

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

There must be a reason why a lot of cultures have a tradition of fasting, whether it be religious or otherwise.

the reasoning behind it is likely to be more sociological, psychological and behavioural than nutritional I'd wager. Many religions promote fasting as a way to Godliness, and there are stories about worshippers having apparitions and messages from God during this cleansing ritual - that's more than likely a result of dehydration and starving than anything else though Still, it lent credence to their ideas and the tradition perpetuated.

That doesn't mean that there aren't benefits to fasting, but I think the positives on the religious side of it are for altogether different reasons.

El_Dangeroso

g'em wrote: »

the reasoning behind it is likely to be more sociological, psychological and behavioural than nutritional I'd wager. Many religions promote fasting as a way to Godliness, and there are stories about worshippers having apparitions and messages from God during this cleansing ritual - that's more than likely a result of dehydration and starving than anything else though Still, it lent credence to their ideas and the tradition perpetuated.

That doesn't mean that there aren't benefits to fasting, but I think the positives on the religious side of it are for altogether different reasons.

Oh probably, it's not the only reason, but it's an intrinsic part of overall health in eastern culture. Sort of the like the way meditation has a spiritual role along with a role in mental (and I would add physical) health.

Wibbs

Like rubabdub said fasting seems to have many of the results of calorie restriction. Certainly in animal models and some small scale human studies. Plus has less of the excessive weight loss and other side effects of the full calorie restriction diet. I've tried the latter myself for about 6 months and it was damned hard going. And I eat little compared to the average to start with.

In the animal models AFAIR they ate normally during the week but were fasted for one or two days at the weekend. It seems to make a big diff to insulin sensitivity and efficiency of the whole insulin dealio(with some pretty impressive immune response changes too).

If someone was wanting to go the CR route to longer life better health etc, then the one day a week fasting thing would be easier. That said people differ in how they respond to fasting. I can(and have) gone three days with little bother, yet a mate of mine who is far fitter and healthier than me would be in bits after 12 hours.

corkcomp

Wibbs wrote: »

I can(and have) gone three days with little bother, yet a mate of mine who is far fitter and healthier than me would be in bits after 12 hours.

youve touched on an interesitng point there... I can remember previously when I was VERY unfit, did hardly exercise and was carrying around plenty excess weight, If I had to go without food for a day it didnt bother me in the slightest, 24 hour fasts were a doddle. where as now I find any more than 5 walking hours without food is very difficult and I honestly think I would find a 24 hour fast abosolute hell!

Getwellsoon

rubadub wrote: »

I have read it could produce similar results as calorie restriction, which is said to prolong lifespan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie_restriction#Intermittent_fasting_as_an_alternative_approach

Maybe informing people about very restrictive diets should not be allowed on here. Not sure if it does prolong life, but if you choose to do this you've just got to hope you don't get hit by a bus or something instead!

El_Dangeroso

I know some CRON'ies (Calorie Restriction/Optimal Nutrition people) and they seem to like it, it's my own personal idea of hell though, counting makes me obsess about food, deprivation sends me straight to overindulgence. I have no idea how many calories I eat and I don't want to start now. Horses for courses.

Plus in the long term, we only have mice or worm studies to look at. Mice can't tell us that they are miserable and hungry also, long term deliberate calorie restriction (like for years, not just the length of the average diet) lowers thyroid function, so I'm not convinced.

Intermittent fasting definitely doesn't suit everyone. I personally still can't do a 24hr fast, 22 is my max, which is just waiting to eat until dinnertime, and that's fine by me, I'm not going to push it further, anything over 14hrs is beneficial to health. It has also been shown to lower the body's 'body fat set point' independent of calorie intake. Edited to say, doesn't work if you eat unhealthy junk at the end of the fast, but you should eat until no longer hungry.

Wibbs

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

I know some CRON'ies (Calorie Restriction/Optimal Nutrition people) and they seem to like it, it's my own personal idea of hell though, counting makes me obsess about food, deprivation sends me straight to overindulgence. I have no idea how many calories I eat and I don't want to start now. Horses for courses.

Its an easy enough diet to get into on that score, but yes anyone with even slightly obsessive tendencies should avoid like the plague.

Plus in the long term, we only have mice or worm studies to look at. Mice can't tell us that they are miserable and hungry

Its not just mice and worms. there have been long term studies on primates too and they found the benefits. CR monkeys lived longer and looked and biologically were significantly younger with stronger immune systems and far less oxidative stress. Every animal thus far studied has shown a positive result. The jury is pretty sure on that one(and its been researched since the 20's or 30's too). The smaller human trials have shown similar promise and CR is currently the only proven life extension technique.

corkcomp wrote:

youve touched on an interesitng point there... I can remember previously when I was VERY unfit, did hardly exercise and was carrying around plenty excess weight, If I had to go without food for a day it didnt bother me in the slightest, 24 hour fasts were a doddle. where as now I find any more than 5 walking hours without food is very difficult and I honestly think I would find a 24 hour fast abosolute hell!

Yea plus when exercising you'llneed the calories. Then again I was always thin, so excess backup I never really had. When I was pretty damn fit I found fasting just as easy TBH, but I wouldnt do any exercise on those days.

People differ so much that one rule cant be applied.

EileenG

Wibbs wrote: »

Its not just mice and worms. there have been long term studies on primates too and they found the benefits. CR monkeys lived longer and looked and biologically were significantly younger with stronger immune systems and far less oxidative stress. Every animal thus far studied has shown a positive result. The jury is pretty sure on that one(and its been researched since the 20's or 30's too). The smaller human trials have shown similar promise and CR is currently the only proven life extension technique.

Can't remember the name of the programme, but it was about the quest for eternal (or at least extended) youth, and it looked at CR, growth hormone and all sorts of other things. The guy who had been doing CR looked amazing, way younger than he really was, though his meals looked really depressing and he was always cold. However, when they looked at his DNA telemars, they found they were MORE damaged than the presenter's, who was the same age.