Fasting for three days can regenerate entire immune system, study finds

[Kyle Jacob Biodrowski]

This one's for you, jts. I haven't read it yet, but I'll get to it later. It just showed up in my Facebook news feed and I thought it would be nice to share here.

Click here for article!

[jts]

This one's for you, jts. I haven't read it yet, but I'll get to it later. It just showed up in my Facebook news feed and I thought it would be nice to share here.

Click here for article!

I've been familiar with the subject of fasting at least as far back as the 1970s.

Fasting can be useful for health problems caused by excesses but it is dangerous for health problems caused by deficiencies. Cancer involves both excesses and deficiencies and fasting does not work well on cancer.

A few myths about fasting.

Fasting is not a diet. There is no such thing as a fruit fast. A 'fruit fast' is a fruit diet.

Fasting is not starving. The difference is during a fast, the body has reserves. A fast should never be taken to the extent of starving.

I don't see the logic of combining poison with getting rid of poison.

Humans are different from the other anthropoid apes in being adapted to nontropical climates. For example humans have 4 times as much starch splitting enzyme as chimps have. This means humans are better adapted to eating potatoes and grains than are chimps, useful in a nontropical climate. Another adaption is the human brain can switch from burning glucose to burning ketose; this makes fasting possible, useful in a nontropical climate where food is not available all year round. Chimps can't do that and don't need to. Another adaption is superior intelligence, agriculture and house building are useful in a nontropical climate.

[BaalChatzaf]

Tell this to someone suffering from AIDS without a working T-cell in sight.

You guys are indulging in medical quackery.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[jts]

Tell this to someone suffering from AIDS without a working T-cell in sight.

You guys are indulging in medical quackery.

Ba'al Chatzaf

1. Your reasoning is it doesn't work on AIDS, therefore it doesn't work on anything. That is not correct reasoning.

2. Also you are incorrectly assuming that fasting is only about T-cells.

3. Define quackery. Quackery can be defined as doctoring not based on science. By that definition, most of what most doctors do (trying to improve health by means of poison) is quackery. Fasting is physiological rest.

4. What do you know about fasting? How many books about fasting did you read? By which authors? What fasts did you do? What fasts did you see others do? What fasting cases do you know? Oh I see, all you know is peer reviewed stuff and you never saw anything peer reviewed about fasting. Based on zero knowledge about fasting, you draw a conclusion.

[moralist]

There is no such thing as a fruit fast. A 'fruit fast' is a fruit diet.

Off topic: "fruit fast" is also a pun.

Greg

[BaalChatzaf]

1. Your reasoning is it doesn't work on AIDS, therefore it doesn't work on anything. That is not correct reasoning.

Your text implied that fasting works in every case. I simply supplied a counter example.

Your generality is false. Fasting, in some case does NOT regenerate the immune system.

Perhaps you should take a course in logic. The way you falsify a statement of the form

For all x x has the property P is by showing there exists a such that a does NOT have the property P.

If you were in one of my logic classes I would flunk you out on the spot.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[jts]

1. Your reasoning is it doesn't work on AIDS, therefore it doesn't work on anything. That is not correct reasoning.

Your text implied that fasting works in every case. I simply supplied a counter example.

Your generality is false. Fasting, in some case does NOT regenerate the immune system.

Perhaps you should take a course in logic. The way you falsify a statement of the form

For all x x has the property P is by showing there exists a such that a does NOT have the property P.

If you were in one of my logic classes I would flunk you out on the spot.

Ba'al Chatzaf

"Your text implied that fasting works in every case. I simply supplied a counter example."

I did not make such a statement. No fasting practitioner would make such a statement. I stated that fasting has limits. I don't know what your counter example is supposed to prove. Would you deprive a patient of the benefits of fasting because it doesn't work in your counter example (which doesn't apply to the patient)?

[moralist]

If you were in one of my logic classes I would flunk you out on the spot.

You'd flunk common sense 101 for calling fasting quackery, Bob. It's a perfectly sound health practice to give your body a little rest once in a while from stuffing it full of food. Since a lot of diseases are behaviorally caused, it's simple common sense that changes in behavior can also remove causes.

Greg

[BaalChatzaf]

If you were in one of my logic classes I would flunk you out on the spot.

You'd flunk common sense 101 for calling fasting quackery, Bob. It's a perfectly sound health practice to give your body a little rest once in a while from stuffing it full of food. Since a lot of diseases are behaviorally caused, it's simple common sense that changes in behavior can also remove causes.

Greg

I never said one should not fast. I said that fasting does NOT restore the immune system in ALL cases. I showed that by providing a counter example. One little counter example takes down a universally quantified giant just as one stone from David's sling took down Golyath.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[moralist]

If you were in one of my logic classes I would flunk you out on the spot.

You'd flunk common sense 101 for calling fasting quackery, Bob. It's a perfectly sound health practice to give your body a little rest once in a while from stuffing it full of food. Since a lot of diseases are behaviorally caused, it's simple common sense that changes in behavior can also remove causes.

Greg

I never said one should not fast. I said that fasting does NOT restore the immune system in ALL cases. I showed that by providing a counter example. One little counter example takes down a universally quantified giant just as one stone from David's sling took down Golyath.

Ba'al Chatzaf

While you're high fiving yourself... there was no giant where you threw your stone. You argued against something that no one had claimed.

Greg

[jts]

Getting back to the original topic of this thread, the idea that a 3 day fast can regenerate the entire immune system.

Loren Lockman doesn't believe it.

 

 

Also Dr. Alec Burton said many years ago that he is not a fan of short fasts.

There is a transition time from eating mode to fasting mode. This transition time can result in burning some muscle and is not deep enough into the fast to accomplish much. Short fasts are a questionable idea. They might do some good, for example give the gut a rest to solve digestion problems.

Also Loren Lockman explains in another video that doubling the length of a fast more than doubles the value of a fast. In other words, if you plot a graph, time vs value, the line is a curve. Shelton writes something similar, that some problems can't be solved by a series of short fasts and require a long fast.

But it seems the scientists were impressed by a 3 day fast. If they are that easily impressed, how impressed would they be by a 3 week or 6 week fast, properly done? By properly done, I mean under conditions of total rest (physical, mental, emotional, physiological) and with sufficient nutrient reserves etc. Fasting is not without dangers and must be done right, and not everyone can do a long fast safely.

 

[BaalChatzaf]

4 hours ago, jts said:

Getting back to the original topic of this thread, the idea that a 3 day fast can regenerate the entire immune system.

Loren Lockman doesn't believe it.

 

 

Also Dr. Alec Burton said many years ago that he is not a fan of short fasts.

There is a transition time from eating mode to fasting mode. This transition time can result in burning some muscle and is not deep enough into the fast to accomplish much. Short fasts are a questionable idea. They might do some good, for example give the gut a rest to solve digestion problems.

Also Loren Lockman explains in another video that doubling the length of a fast more than doubles the value of a fast. In other words, if you plot a graph, time vs value, the line is a curve. Shelton writes something similar, that some problems can't be solved by a series of short fasts and require a long fast.

But it seems the scientists were impressed by a 3 day fast. If they are that easily impressed, how impressed would they be by a 3 week or 6 week fast, properly done? By properly done, I mean under conditions of total rest (physical, mental, emotional, physiological) and with sufficient nutrient reserves etc. Fasting is not without dangers and must be done right, and not everyone can do a long fast safely.

 

A 6 week fast (I am assuming a total fast on the intake of solid food)  very likely results in a corpse.  I call it the Bobby Sands  approach.  Bobby Sands was an IRA  partisan who went on a total fast while in a British Prison  and he died  after a 50 day total fast.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Sands

[jts]

59 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

A 6 week fast (I am assuming a total fast on the intake of solid food)  very likely results in a corpse.  I call it the Bobby Sands  approach.  Bobby Sands was an IRA  partisan who went on a total fast while in a British Prison  and he died  after a 50 day total fast.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Sands

Fasting is living on air and water and sleep and no food, solid or liquid. A so called juice fast is not a fast but a diet.

I do not believe you know much about fasting. You reject all sources of information about fasting unless it is a double blind study, which is impossible, or religion. You reject experience. Shelton supervised 40, 000 fasts. TrueNorth supervised 15,000 fasts at last count. Loren Lockman said he supervised 3,000 fasts. You reject all this experience. You reject all possible sources of good information about fasting. Religion is religion, not science.

Then you cite one case, Bobby Sands, and draw a generalization from this one case. Bobby Sands was not fasting under conditions of total rest (physical, mental, emotional, physiological) but prison conditions and therefore his fast was a poor example of a fast.

I do not necessarily trust the doctor's statement that he died of starvation. Most people have an unthinking knee jerk response to a death during a fast that it was death by starvation. People can die during a fast from causes other than starvation.

Most people who have good nutrient reserves and are not obese can go about 40 days in conditions of rest without harm to health. Ward N., a long distance runner who certainly was not obese, did a 42 day fast and published his diary of his fast in his NHM2M, which I suscribed to at the time. He did not become a corpse.

40 days, more or less, is about the limit for a non-obese person in conditions of total rest. That is when the body starts signaling by hunger that it wants food. An experienced fasting doctor can distinguish between real hunger and phony hunger. Real hunger means it is time to terminate the fast. If the fast is pushed beyond this, it is no longer a fast but is starvation and is bad and all fasting experts are strongly opposed to starvation.

Forget Bobby Sands. Read about Jack Goldstein's 42 day fast.

the whole book -- https://escapeallthesethings.com/FastingUC

the chapter about the fast -- https://escapeallthesethings.com/triumph-over-disease-by-fasting-and-natural-diet-chapter-5

breaking, this is important -- https://escapeallthesethings.com/triumph-over-disease-by-fasting-and-natural-diet-chapter-6/

 

[BaalChatzaf]

3 hours ago, jts said:

Fasting is living on air and water and sleep and no food, solid or liquid. A so called juice fast is not a fast but a diet.

I do not believe you know much about fasting. You reject all sources of information about fasting unless it is a double blind study, which is impossible, or religion. You reject experience. Shelton supervised 40, 000 fasts. TrueNorth supervised 15,000 fasts at last count. Loren Lockman said he supervised 3,000 fasts. You reject all this experience. You reject all possible sources of good information about fasting. Religion is religion, not science.

Then you cite one case, Bobby Sands, and draw a generalization from this one case. Bobby Sands was not fasting under conditions of total rest (physical, mental, emotional, physiological) but prison conditions and therefore his fast was a poor example of a fast.

I do not necessarily trust the doctor's statement that he died of starvation. Most people have an unthinking knee jerk response to a death during a fast that it was death by starvation. People can die during a fast from causes other than starvation.

Most people who have good nutrient reserves and are not obese can go about 40 days in conditions of rest without harm to health. Ward N., a long distance runner who certainly was not obese, did a 42 day fast and published his diary of his fast in his NHM2M, which I suscribed to at the time. He did not become a corpse.

40 days, more or less, is about the limit for a non-obese person in conditions of total rest. That is when the body starts signaling by hunger that it wants food. An experienced fasting doctor can distinguish between real hunger and phony hunger. Real hunger means it is time to terminate the fast. If the fast is pushed beyond this, it is no longer a fast but is starvation and is bad and all fasting experts are strongly opposed to starvation.

Forget Bobby Sands. Read about Jack Goldstein's 42 day fast.

the whole book -- https://escapeallthesethings.com/FastingUC

the chapter about the fast -- https://escapeallthesethings.com/triumph-over-disease-by-fasting-and-natural-diet-chapter-5

breaking, this is important -- https://escapeallthesethings.com/triumph-over-disease-by-fasting-and-natural-diet-chapter-6/

 

All  it takes is one 50 day fast that ends in death to disprove that 50 day fasts promote health.  That is how hypotheses are falsified.  A soundly designed experiment which yields an empirical result that negates a prediction  proves that the hypothesis is (in general) false.  One black swan negates the assertion that all swans are white. The rule is called modus tolens  and it is a part of all standard logic that is consistent with the Aristotelian Syllogistic. 

One nasty mean fact destroys a sublimely beautiful theory. 

[jts]

7 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

All  it takes is one 50 day fast that ends in death to disprove that 50 day fasts promote health.  That is how hypotheses are falsified.  A soundly designed experiment which yields an empirical result that negates a prediction  proves that the hypothesis is (in general) false.  One black swan negates the assertion that all swans are white. The rule is called modus tolens  and it is a part of all standard logic that is consistent with the Aristotelian Syllogistic. 

One nasty mean fact destroys a sublimely beautiful theory. 

All it takes is one person to die of heart failure brought on by shovelling snow to disprove that exercise promotes health. You are intentionally being stupid.

 

[BaalChatzaf]

4 minutes ago, jts said:

All it takes is one person to die of heart failure brought on by shovelling snow to disprove that exercise promotes health. You are intentionally being stupid.

 

Stated as categorical proposition, I am dead on right.  Stated as a statistical inductive statement it is a different story. The population that exercises regularly has fewer deaths by heart failure than the population that does not exercise enough.  That is a statistic statement,  not a categorical statement. 

[jts]

54 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Stated as categorical proposition, I am dead on right.  Stated as a statistical inductive statement it is a different story. The population that exercises regularly has fewer deaths by heart failure than the population that does not exercise enough.  That is a statistic statement,  not a categorical statement. 

Here is a guy who did a 53 day fast. That probably refutes a few categorical propositions asserted by ignorant people.

 

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, jts said:

Here is a guy who did a 53 day fast. That probably refutes a few categorical propositions asserted by ignorant people.

 

I will not accept it in the absence of a medical workup showing  

He really did have a solid fast WITH NO LIQUIDS

The human body gives off water in the urine and sweat.   All the medical data on death by thirst estimates death will occur after ten days without ANY liquid.

I just do not believe that any human can go 53 days without any water input.  That just contradicts everything that is known about water utilization in the human body. 

I think this is nonsense....

I can believe someone can go 53 days without food,  but not 53 days without water. 

[jts]

46 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I will not accept it in the absence of a medical workup showing  

He really did have a solid fast WITH NO LIQUIDS

The human body gives off water in the urine and sweat.   All the medical data on death by thirst estimates death will occur after ten days without ANY liquid.

I just do not believe that any human can go 53 days without any water input.  That just contradicts everything that is known about water utilization in the human body. 

I think this is nonsense....

I can believe someone can go 53 days without food,  but not 53 days without water. 

You are ignorant. During a fast one drinks water.

 

[BaalChatzaf]

22 minutes ago, jts said:

You are ignorant. During a fast one drinks water.

 

No. A fast is total stoppage of intake.  If one drinks water, one is merely on a diet. 

[jts]

22 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

No. A fast is total stoppage of intake.  If one drinks water, one is merely on a diet. 

That is not the usage of the word 'fast' by professionals who make their living by supervising fasts. Your religious sources are irrelevant.

With water only, digestion shuts down.

 

[BaalChatzaf]

43 minutes ago, jts said:

 

With water only, digestion shuts down.

 

Doesn't it though.  Since there is nothing to digest.  The body uses up any glycogen  and then goes after the fat.  When that runs out the body metabolizes protein.  When that runs out there is nothing left but death. 

[jts]

24 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Doesn't it though.  Since there is nothing to digest.  The body uses up any glycogen  and then goes after the fat.  When that runs out the body metabolizes protein.  When that runs out there is nothing left but death. 

As I explained many times. Fasting and starving are 2 different things.

 

[Brant Gaede]

On 5/18/2017 at 4:47 PM, BaalChatzaf said:

No. A fast is total stoppage of intake.  If one drinks water, one is merely on a diet. 

A fast is what fasters say it is; you aren't a faster. Same for diet. And starvation is a consequence of one of several things one of which might be a (bad?) diet; another a (bad?) fasting; etc. As for fasting making the immune system fire back up, good luck on finding the science on that as opposed to merely starving the cancer cells with a certain kind of fasting (if not total fasting). If I had an inoperable and conventionally untreatable (radiation and chemo) cancer I might try an almost total fast and lose almost half my body weight based on a reliable enough anecdote to justify the misery and lose of muscle mass.

--Brant

[moralist]

On ‎5‎/‎21‎/‎2017 at 6:05 AM, Brant Gaede said:

A fast is what fasters say it is; you aren't a faster.

Bob the Blob has decreed what is and isn't fasting.

 I've been doing carrot juice in the morning with an evening meal each day just to see how it works, and haven't had any ill effects or lack of energy to dig holes to plant trees and tend the garden. My wife had cancer and after her operation was told that without radiation and chemotherapy the cancer would return with a vengeance within two years and kill her. With diet and fasting she's been cancer free for over ten years.

Our bodies have an innate cellular intelligence... which when not impeded, can reestablish proper order.

While the pharmaceutical chemical model has the empirically proven ability to alter symptoms...

...belief in medicine as a god is a secular religion.

Greg