Dry Fasting

Olsky

Perusing the internet and came across a few YouTube videos on this. We are probably all familiar by now with water fasting. But what about dry fasting? Where no food or liquids are taken for 1,2,3 days or longer. Anything in it or are the benefits overstated?

Alf Veedersane

Sounds like a mental way to create a deficit and/or punish yourself.

silverharp

ive listened to a bunch of podcasts on the benefits of fasting up to 5 days or so but its always been on the basis that you stay hydrated. the body is designed to store fat but we aint camels

Alf Veedersane

silverharp wrote: »

ive listened to a bunch of podcasts on the benefits of fasting up to 5 days or so but its always been on the basis that you stay hydrated. the body is designed to store fat but we aint camels

What are the supposed benefits?

Olsky

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

What are the supposed benefits?

I've done several 5-10 day fasts but always hydrated.
Benefits apparently are that you detox by using unwanted matter for energy and that apparently you can generate metabolic water by using existing cells. Sounds a bit dubious.
As with any fasting I would see primary benefit as an exercise in self discipline and embracing rather than fearing hunger when it comes. Whether it allows the body to take a break and cleanse itself is unclear.
However question I am interested in is whether dry fasting would have any additional benefits over hydrated fasting

Dtp1979

What exactly is the body detoxing and cleansing itself of?

Olsky

Dtp1979 wrote: »

What exactly is the body detoxing and cleansing itself of?

Think the theory is that once your glycogen stores are depleted, HGH rises and insulin is low. Body then begins using fat stores and other waste/unneeded matter for energy.
But as I said main benefit is in realising that you don't have to eat every time you are hungry. If you ignore hunger it will go away.
Wondering would the same be true for thirst if you stopped drinking for a few days

s7ryf3925pivug

Taking no liquids for several days could be fatal. Most people would die within a week or so, some in a few days.

Not to be construed as medical advice.... "don't do incredibly stupid dangerous sh!t because you read some nonsense about it" shouldnt need to be called medical advice

s7ryf3925pivug

Olsky wrote: »

Think the theory is that once your glycogen stores are depleted, HGH rises and insulin is low. Body then begins using fat stores and other waste/unneeded matter for energy.
But as I said main benefit is in realising that you don't have to eat every time you are hungry. If you ignore hunger it will go away.
Wondering would the same be true for thirst if you stopped drinking for a few days

Why would you want to become severely dehydrated though? Fasting food for days at a time is a bad idea too, but at least you can get why people think it might be a good way to lose weight fast. Fasting fluids is just loony.

Olsky

Zain Shy Rumor wrote: »

Taking no liquids for several days could be fatal. Most people would die within a week or so, some in a few days.

To be frank that is ridiculous scaremongering and just plain wrong. Most people would die after about 70 days without food or 15-18 days without water. Don't try to shut down any discussion on the merits or not of fasting by such hysterical scare tactics.

Olsky

Zain Shy Rumor wrote: »

Fasting food for days at a time is a bad idea too, but at least you can get why people think it might be a good way to lose weight fast.

That sir is just your opinion. Which you are of course entitled to. Lots of people including medical professionals and most religions think it is a very good idea.
And it's not really about weight loss.

Dtp1979

Olsky wrote: »

Think the theory is that once your glycogen stores are depleted, HGH rises and insulin is low. Body then begins using fat stores and other waste/unneeded matter for energy.
But as I said main benefit is in realising that you don't have to eat every time you are hungry. If you ignore hunger it will go away.
Wondering would the same be true for thirst if you stopped drinking for a few days

I’m pretty sure the liver and kidneys do that job for you. And dehydrating yourself will only damage your organs

Dtp1979

Olsky wrote: »

That sir is just your opinion. Which you are of course entitled to. Lots of people including medical professionals and most religions think it is a very good idea.
And it's not really about weight loss.

Lots of medical professionals recommend lipotrim too and it’s absolute nonsense. And don’t get me started on religion.

Olsky

Dtp1979 wrote: »

Lots of medical professionals recommend lipotrim too and it’s absolute nonsense. And don’t get me started on religion.

But still worthy of a discussion. However trying to end a debate by claiming something is dangerous and will kill people is a cheap tactic.

Dtp1979

Olsky wrote: »

But still worthy of a discussion. However trying to end a debate by claiming something is dangerous and will kill people is a cheap tactic.

I never said it would kill anyone. I seriously doubt dehydrating the body for days would be recommended by any medical professional. As for religion, I can’t see why any religious organisation would know anything about the medical or nutritional side of this

Olsky

Dtp1979 wrote: »

As for religion, I can’t see why any religious organisation would know anything about the medical or nutritional side of this

Sometimes religious practices are based on wisdom. No coincidence that practically all religions incorporate and encourage some form of fasting. I.e. Ramadan, lent, buddist nygune etc.

Olsky

Dtp1979 wrote: »

I

seriously doubt dehydrating the body for days would be recommended by any medical professional. [/QUOTE]
One of the primary advocates of dry fasting is a Dr Filonov. He claims to have done hundreds of controlled tests. Can you name a medical professional that has criticized it?

Dtp1979

Olsky wrote: »

seriously doubt dehydrating the body for days would be recommended by any medical professional.

One of the primary advocates of dry fasting is a Dr Filonov. He claims to have done hundreds of controlled tests. Can you name a medical professional that has criticized it?[/quote]

I can’t sorry.
Common sense would intervene though. Anyway, along with Dr.filonovs ‘claims’, could you provide a link to the medical studies he/she would’ve published. I’d be very interested to read them

silverharp

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

What are the supposed benefits?

the term used is autophagy, supposedly when the body isnt busy digesting, it starts recycling damaged cells so its not meant to be weight loss tool as such. On the other hand Intermittent fasting is meant to be nearly as good as actual fasting

I dont know enough about fasting to defend it but in "caveman" terms its probably more natural for our bodies to be geared to a feast and famine setup rather than diabolical :pac: companies like kellogs would have us do.

I do Intermittent fasting 18/6 and i find it easy enough so I eat between 1pm and 7pm roughly,its a good way not to mindlessly snack at all hours

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ws0mOmfC9EU

Mellor

Olsky wrote: »

Perusing the internet and came across a few YouTube videos on this. We are probably all familiar by now with water fasting. But what about dry fasting? Where no food or liquids are taken for 1,2,3 days or longer. Anything in it or are the benefits overstated?

Sounds absolutely retarded tbh. And a complete lack of understand on basic biological needs.
Aiming this at the "Doctor" pushing it, not you btw.

Olsky wrote: »

I've done several 5-10 day fasts but always hydrated.[

Fasting that long is unnecessary and damage possible outweighs benefits. But staying hydrated is a HUGE difference.

Benefits apparently are that you detox by using unwanted matter for energy and that apparently you can generate metabolic water by using existing cells. Sounds a bit dubious.

If matter can be used for energy, it's not waste.
You can't generate water. Drawing water from cells is what happens when you are dehydrated.
It's EXACTLY the process that kills you.

Olsky wrote: »

Think the theory is that once your glycogen stores are depleted, HGH rises and insulin is low. Body then begins using fat stores and other waste/unneeded matter for energy.

You can deplete glycogen on a ketogenic diet with out fasting or resticting water.

Olsky wrote: »

To be frank that is ridiculous scaremongering and just plain wrong. Most people would die after about 70 days without food or 15-18 days without water. Don't try to shut down any discussion on the merits or not of fasting by such hysterical scare tactics.

I'm sorry, but the above is absolute nonsense. All of it.
Long Kesh hunger striker, Martin Hurson, died after 46 days.
Of the 10 prisoners that died in total. 8 died before they reached 70 days. Regardless, fasting from food wasn't the criticism. Water was the issue.

Most people would die after about 70 days without food or 15-18 days without water.

Incorrect. A prisoner in Austria who made it to 18 days. Extreme outlier. He only survived that long because he was licking condensation off the wall and not moving much.

Moving around, going about your live, you lose water. Breathing, sweating, etc.
Hot weather and exercise makes you lose water.
Losing 10% of BW is a medical emergency. That's not a lot of water.

Olsky wrote: »

One of the primary advocates of dry fasting is a Dr Filonov. He claims to have done hundreds of controlled tests. Can you name a medical professional that has criticized it?

Claims are worthless.
What evidence does he have?

Mellor

silverharp wrote: »

I dont know enough about fasting to defend it but in "caveman" terms its probably more natural for our bodies to be geared to a feast and famine setup rather than diabolical :pac: companies like kellogs would have us do.

Our bodies are capable - by default or evolution - our survive a feast and famine setup without issue. But that doesn't mean that the feast and famine pattern produced the optimal results.

Not saying there's anything wrong with IF btw. I don't believe there is. I'm just point out a huge flaw in the "we did X like this for a million years" logic.

silverharp

Mellor wrote: »

Our bodies are capable - by default or evolution - our survive a feast and famine setup without issue. But that doesn't mean that the feast and famine pattern produced the optimal results.

Not saying there's anything wrong with IF btw. I don't believe there is. I'm just point out a huge flaw in the "we did X like this for a million years" logic.

case by case i guess, if some charleton came along and suggested people should only sleep on alternate nights, one could say straight off that it goes completely against what our bodies are used too and at a minimum be highly skeptical.
Supposedly 100m American are at a minimum pre diabetic so would be incline to cast one's mind back. Obviously what you eat is infinitely more important than when you eat so thats where the main focus should be, but still it might throw up some useful ideas or results for people

Mellor

silverharp wrote: »

case by case i guess, if some charleton came along and suggested people should only sleep on alternate nights, one could say straight off that it goes completely against what our bodies are used too and at a minimum be highly skeptical

That's very different though. It's completely contrary to the norm, even cavemen slept at night, and there's obvious reasons for a 24 hours cycle. No basis to stay up for days.

At least theres some logic to cavemen eating - although I don't buy into it.

Supposedly 100m American are at a minimum pre diabetic so would be incline to cast one's mind back. Obviously what you eat is infinitely more important than when you eat so thats where the main focus should be, but still it might throw up some useful ideas or results for people

You only need to go back <100 years to normalise weight, not to caveman times. Which suggests its not actually a meal frequency issue and purely down to quantity.

Olsky

silverharp wrote: »

. Obviously what you eat is infinitely more important than when you eat so thats where the main focus should be, but still it might throw up some useful ideas or results for people

Mellor wrote: »

Our bodies are capable - by default or evolution - our survive a feast and famine setup without issue. But that doesn't mean that the feast and famine pattern produced the optimal results.
.

Mellor wrote: »

You only need to go back <100 years to normalise weight, not to caveman times. Which suggests its not actually a meal frequency issue and purely down to quantity.

Well. I would believe that when you eat is more important to a large extent than what you eat. (Unless you eat just highly processed sugary foods) and that the fear of being hungry and idea that you have to eat regularly and every time you get hungry or you will get a weakness and collapse has done a lot of damage.

silverharp

Mellor wrote: »

At least theres some logic to cavemen eating - although I don't buy into it.


You only need to go back <100 years to normalise weight, not to caveman times. Which suggests its not actually a meal frequency issue and purely down to quantity.

the difference back then was people weren't damaging their systems for 30 or 40 years before they started looking after themselves. I don't know enough to defend any kind of fasting but one could certainly research the area with control groups and see what it throws up, maybe its been done I don't know.
The fasting idea isn't about losing weight as such but people doing it are hoping for other benefits maybe to help with inflammatory conditions , reversing or helping with Type 2, that kind of thing.

silverharp

Olsky wrote: »

Well. I would believe that when you eat is more important to a large extent than what you eat. (Unless you eat just highly processed sugary foods) and that the fear of being hungry and idea that you have to eat regularly and every time you get hungry or you will get a weakness and collapse has done a lot of damage.

from my own n=1 experimentation , I do find it liberating to not be tied to the idea that you have to eat every couple of hours from the time you wake up in the morning. Also being able to recognise a hunger signal and go "that's cute now where was I" is a useful habit to have.
At the end of the day you have to find out what works for you, I'd have been the classic case of someone who would crave a bowl of cereal at 9pm whereas now the idea doesn't even pop into my head. It also works well with low carb as its a good diet for satiation so its not much of an imposition.
While Ive done some one meals a day, Ive never not eaten for a whole day, I was thinking of trying it over the summer just to see what it feels like.

Mellor

Olsky wrote: »

I would believe that when you eat is more important to a large extent than what you eat.

There's literally thousands of studies that highlight how intake is the most important aspect. Total energy content is a subset of what you eat.

(Unless you eat just highly processed sugary foods) and that the fear of being hungry and idea that you have to eat regularly and every time you get hungry or you will get a weakness and collapse has done a lot of damage.

Right, I agree you don't have to eat regularly, or a set amount of meals. But that proves that when you eat isn't important at all

djPSB

Olsky wrote: »

I've done several 5-10 day fasts but always hydrated.
Benefits apparently are that you detox by using unwanted matter for energy and that apparently you can generate metabolic water by using existing cells. Sounds a bit dubious.
As with any fasting I would see primary benefit as an exercise in self discipline and embracing rather than fearing hunger when it comes. Whether it allows the body to take a break and cleanse itself is unclear.
However question I am interested in is whether dry fasting would have any additional benefits over hydrated fasting

How do you feel after the 5 day fasts?

Do you take any supplements or electrolytes during it?

Mellor

silverharp wrote: »

the difference back then was people weren't damaging their systems for 30 or 40 years before they started looking after themselves.

Exactly, which suggests that the difference in diet between then and now is the issue. Not between caveman times to now.
I'm sure there are many studies that show a benefit. I'm not saying that there isn't a benefit to IF. I'm saying the benefit is probably not down to caveman lifestyle.

Most importantly, Intermittent Fasting is nothing like Dry fasting.
IF is a adjusting meal timing but maintaining energy intake.
Dry fasting is depriving yourself of basal needs, water is a basic human right for a reason.

silverharp

Mellor wrote: »

Exactly, which suggests that the difference in diet between then and now is the issue. Not between caveman times to now.
I'm sure there are many studies that show a benefit. I'm not saying that there isn't a benefit to IF. I'm saying the benefit is probably not down to caveman lifestyle.

Most importantly, Intermittent Fasting is nothing like Dry fasting.
IF is a adjusting meal timing but maintaining energy intake.
Dry fasting is depriving yourself of basal needs, water is a basic human right for a reason.

sure Ive not even heard of dry fasting before so its not on anyone's radar, if its a thing let people that have done it over several years report what their experiences are but in terms of "caveman" people always settled near water also we clearly don't store water in the way we store fat so I cant even see a reason to raise dry fasting. Any survival tips highlight the importance of finding water as your cognitive function drops fairly quickly without it so it difficult to see whats in it.

As for my other point, if someone has grown up on a whole foods diet, most likely they are in good shape internally so all they need to do is steady as she goes. If someone has grown up on the "Standard American Diet" they have a better than even chance of already having cumulative damage and getting Type 2 during their life and other health conditions. In this case they may need more tools in their arsenal to manage or reverse course. The point of IF isn't calorie control though it might help discipline in this area , its to promote the body to repair itself or reduce insulin resistance above and beyond diet only. I don't think its the holy grail and would put it in the 20 of the 80/20 ways to benefit and multi day fasting I'd put in the 20 of the 80/20 benefits of IF

Olsky

djPSB wrote: »

How do you feel after the 5 day fasts?

Do you take any supplements or electrolytes during it?

No supplements. A bit weaker and not enough energy for strenous activities and sleep more but otherwise fine. Did not notice any impairment or improvement in cognitive function.
Main benefit is not being a slave to hunger.

Olsky

Mellor wrote: »

Most importantly, Intermittent Fasting is nothing like Dry fasting.

Exactly. Thread was intended to be a discussion on dry fasting and how it compares to hydrated fasting.
IF and eating windows is already much discussed elsewhere.

BloodBath

Olsky wrote: »

That sir is just your opinion. Which you are of course entitled to. Lots of people including medical professionals and most religions think it is a very good idea.
And it's not really about weight loss.

Olsky wrote: »

Exactly. Thread was intended to be a discussion on dry fasting and how it compares to hydrated fasting.
IF and eating windows is already much discussed elsewhere.

Oh if religion says it then it must be true. :rolleyes:

There are no benefits. Fairly obvious to anyone with even a basic understanding of bodily function. Not drinking water for that length of time is down right dangerous with 0 medical benefits.