"Results of Fasting - Healing Chronic Headaches"

[jts]

This is a smoothly told story. Christina had a nonstop headache for 16 years. After a 41 day fast it was gone.

13:29

http://youtu.be/oxP3K-rCNvc

Yes I know. Everybody will be sceptical.

1. How do we know she had a headache? We have only her word. Maybe she was paid by TrueNorth to tell a phony story.

2. Assuming that she did have a headache for real and assuming furthermore that the headache did go away after fasting 41 days, what evidence do we have that fasting had anything to do with it? Maybe the headache would have gone away at the same time without the fast. Well maybe that would have been quite a coincidence, but coincidences can happen.

3. Maybe the fast did have to do with the headache going away, but maybe it was a placebo effect. Maybe believing in fasting worked.

All the above objections are possible but in the absence of evidence supporting these speculations I don't believe them. They are perhaps examples of what Peikoff calls the arbitrary statement.

Another question. (Assuming the story is true.) Was she irrational in trying fasting as a possible solution, considering that she had no evidence in advance that it would work? I think, considering many stories where fasting seemed to solve a health problem and considering the scientific theory behind fasting, she had evidence that it might work.

Her headache was caused by damage to the dura mater. This is a tough membrane protecting the brain and spinal cord. If this story is on the level, it seems that this can, at least sometimes, heal during a long fast. I find that at least mildly interesting.

Someone will say something about peer reviewed research. There is informal evidence from people who tried it. The nay sayers are usually people who did not try it. Is there evidence that it does not work? I would be surprised if a study on fasting, in favour of fasting, showed up in a scientific paper that gets most of its revenue from drug advertisements. That would not be good business. It would also be a major paradigm shift.

[caroljane]

I fasted once and it GAVE me a headache/ I always take your bait jts and the condition is becoming chronic.

[jts]

I fasted once and it GAVE me a headache/ I always take your bait jts and the condition is becoming chronic.

Headache is one of a bunch of symptoms that people can experience during a fast. Shelton devotes a chapter to symptomology of the fast and he explains what these symptoms mean. Another symptom that most people experience during a fast (from the 4th day on) is a bad taste in the mouth. Dr. Alan Goldhamer says it's supposed to taste like something crawled in your mouth and died.

Dr. Shelton (who supervised 40,000 fasts) wrote that he watches people 60 years old and up more closely because (he says) people 60 and up tend to have hidden weaknesses.

Dr. Alan Goldhamer (who supervised 8,000 fasts) says fasting should always be done under supervision. (I don't believe that.) He says the reason is that sometimes the symptoms are a healing process and sometimes the symptoms are a real problem and to know the difference requires an experienced fasting doctor.

Last summer I did a 22 day fast (air, water, sleep, nothing else). No supervision. Zero symptoms the first 16 days, mild weakness (beyond my normal weakness) starting day 17. Apart from the mild weakness starting on day 17, no symptoms. I should have gone 30 or 40 days but I was doing this without supervision and never went this long before and I was a chickenshit.

According to Dr. Alan Goldhamer, chimps can't fast. The reason why according to Goldhamer is that during a fast the brain must switch from glucose to ketones, and the chimp brain can't do that.

[BaalChatzaf]

If I fasted for 41 days (6 weeks!) my headache would be gone too. I would be dead.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Mike82ARP]

As a former chiropractor and son of a chiropractor, I’ve had a decent amount of experience with non-allopathic methods of treatment. Headaches during fasting are a common occurrence since many environmental toxins are fat soluble and are therefore stored in adipose (fat) tissue. As one fasts, the fat stores are being metabolized and the toxins enter the bloodstream and can make one feel quite sick. The quickest way to clear this stuff out of your system is to continue drinking a lot of spiring/mineral water- not distilled. Liver detox with milk thistle is also beneficial in helping improve liver function which has a multitude of health benefits. If you’re over 30, I’d find a physician to supervise your fast as you may have some nascent metabolic problems emerging (hypoglycemia, ketosis-if you’re on the slim side).

[Backlighting]

I once did a water fast for 4 days. During that time I played racquetball for 2 hrs each day. I lost a belt size and experienced light headedness on the final day. I plan on trying it again, substituting some lap swimming instead.

[jts]

I once did a water fast for 4 days. During that time I played racquetball for 2 hrs each day. I lost a belt size and experienced light headedness on the final day. I plan on trying it again, substituting some lap swimming instead.

I used to mess with fasting in the 1970s and 1980s. Typically 6-9 days, one 13 days, one 15 days. I used to sometimes work and stuff during a fast. But if it's a serious fast for benefit, one is supposed to rest during a fast, not work, even if one is able to work. Maybe you are too healthy to have any need of fasting.

From 2009 on, I did some more fasts, typically 6-8 days, for a serious purpose.

The 4th day is when everything happens for probably most people, weakness, absence of hunger, blood rushing out of the brain upon getting up quickly. It is difficult to generalize about the effects of a fast because different people react differently depending on state of health and how the fast is done.

It is good to read books about fasting, especially "The Science and Fine Art of Fasting". But I learned a few things by experience that I could not have learned from books, or at least better than I could from books. For example I learned that during a fast I must keep warm and sleep lots. If I keep warm and sleep lots, it goes very well, otherwise the fast is ruined. That's just me, perhaps you don't have the same need.

Dr. Alan Goldhamer (who supervised 8,000 fasts) says fasting is just as much diagnostic as it is therapeutic. I hope that the absence of symptoms during my 22 day fast last summer does not mean that fasting ain't worth shit for therapeutic value.

[jts]

If I fasted for 41 days (6 weeks!) my headache would be gone too. I would be dead.

Ba'al Chatzaf

What would you die of? Starvation? Ward, the original coordinator of the NH-M2M, did a 42 day fast. He was a long distance runner and I'm quite sure he was not overweight. Even if the body fat runs out before 41 days, that is only the start of starvation, not death.

[Brant Gaede]

Water fasts strike me as dangerous. What are they suppose to accomplish? Food fasting needs potassium supplementation so you don't risk a heart attack.

--Brant

[jts]

Water fasts strike me as dangerous. What are they suppose to accomplish? Food fasting needs potassium supplementation so you don't risk a heart attack.

--Brant

You know nothing about fasting. There are many ridiculous myths about fasting. If you are really interested in the subject of fasting, read this book, all of it.

http://www.soilandhealth.org/02/0201hyglibcat/020127shelton.III/020127.toc.htm

[BaalChatzaf]

Water fasts strike me as dangerous. What are they suppose to accomplish? Food fasting needs potassium supplementation so you don't risk a heart attack.

--Brant

You know nothing about fasting. There are many ridiculous myths about fasting. If you are really interested in the subject of fasting, read this book, all of it.

http://www.soilandhealth.org/02/0201hyglibcat/020127shelton.III/020127.toc.htm

Has the stuff in this book been scientifically corroborated If not, it is just more crankary.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[jts]

Water fasts strike me as dangerous. What are they suppose to accomplish? Food fasting needs potassium supplementation so you don't risk a heart attack.

--Brant

You know nothing about fasting. There are many ridiculous myths about fasting. If you are really interested in the subject of fasting, read this book, all of it.

http://www.soilandhealth.org/02/0201hyglibcat/020127shelton.III/020127.toc.htm

Has the stuff in this book been scientifically corroborated If not, it is just more crankary.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Read the book and find out. The author supervised 40,000 fasts in his lifetime and seemed to know all the literature on the subject. Do you know a better source of info about fasting?

[jts]

If I fasted for 41 days (6 weeks!) my headache would be gone too. I would be dead.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Is that based on a peer reviewed scientific study in a respected scientific journal? If not, then it's bunk.

[Brant Gaede]

Water fasts strike me as dangerous. What are they suppose to accomplish? Food fasting needs potassium supplementation so you don't risk a heart attack.

--Brant

You know nothing about fasting. There are many ridiculous myths about fasting. If you are really interested in the subject of fasting, read this book, all of it.

http://www.soilandhealth.org/02/0201hyglibcat/020127shelton.III/020127.toc.htm

You know quite a bit about what I don't know and I don't have any idea how you know so much. Your attitude does strike as religious, but this second-hand argument from authority is silly.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

Water fasts strike me as dangerous. What are they suppose to accomplish? Food fasting needs potassium supplementation so you don't risk a heart attack.

--Brant

You know nothing about fasting. There are many ridiculous myths about fasting. If you are really interested in the subject of fasting, read this book, all of it.

http://www.soilandhealth.org/02/0201hyglibcat/020127shelton.III/020127.toc.htm

Has the stuff in this book been scientifically corroborated If not, it is just more crankary.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Read the book and find out. The author supervised 40,000 fasts in his lifetime and seemed to know all the literature on the subject. Do you know a better source of info about fasting?

I only read refereed scientific journals. Do you have a reference to one? I will not waste my time with crank fodder.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[jts]

Water fasts strike me as dangerous. What are they suppose to accomplish? Food fasting needs potassium supplementation so you don't risk a heart attack.

--Brant

You know nothing about fasting. There are many ridiculous myths about fasting. If you are really interested in the subject of fasting, read this book, all of it.

http://www.soilandhealth.org/02/0201hyglibcat/020127shelton.III/020127.toc.htm

You know quite a bit about what I don't know and I don't have any idea how you know so much. Your attitude does strike as religious, but this second-hand argument from authority is silly.

--Brant

I am not religious. How can anyone get the idea that I'm religious? Directing you to a source of info was not intended as an argument. And it's not about authority. It is information. Why is a source of information always construed as an argument? And an argument from authority? It is not an argument and it is not authority. It is information. All you need to do is click on the link and read. Is that so difficult? You have a whole book to read, perhaps the greatest book ever written about fasting. It has enough information to keep you out of mischief for a while.

There are many reasons why people fast, some legit, some not. Religious reasons are bullshit. Better telephone connection with God is hogwash. Political reasons make no sense to me. Too sick to eat and your stomach throws the food back in your face is a perfectly legit reason.

Listen to the video at the top of this thread for a story of how fasting stopped a 16 year headache. Nothing else worked. Listen to the other video about fasting in another thread. Listen to Alan Goldhamer's long lecture. No, that's not an argument and not authority. Those things are information, facts, education, learning.

Fasting does not require potassium supplementation. Or salt. Or anything else. Only air and water and sleep and keeping comfortably warm. You must come off the fast right. Don't eat too much coming off the fast.

[jts]

Read the book and find out. The author supervised 40,000 fasts in his lifetime and seemed to know all the literature on the subject. Do you know a better source of info about fasting?

I only read refereed scientific journals. Do you have a reference to one? I will not waste my time with crank fodder.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I asked you that question. I doubt you have an answer. Can you point me to a refereed study that I can access that doesn't have any of the following criticisms?

Most of the "scientific" works on inanition have little or no value for us in a study of fasting. This is so for the following reasons:

1. Abstinence from food may mean missing one meal, or it may mean abstinence from food until death from starvation results. In these works little or no effort is made to differentiate the changes that occur during the different stages of inanition.

2. Most of the studies (in man) have been in famine victims and these are not cases of fasting, nor do these people suffer only from lack of food. There is often exposure, there is always fear and worry, there are also the effects of one-sided diets. Findings in death in famines are classed as due to inanition and are not differentiated from fasting changes.

3. In total inanition no water is taken and many of the scientific experiments withhold water as well as food from the animals. The results of such experiments cannot be used to determine the results of fasting.

4. Inanition studies are all mixed up with pathologies of all kinds that occasion more or less inanition. Many of the studies of starvation in humans have been complicated with other conditions that account for much of the findings.

5. Studies of fasting changes are so mixed up with starvation changes and changes due to dietary deficiencies and there is so little discrimination between the three types of changes, that these books become very misleading.

6. None of the experimenters have ever observed properly conducted fasts of the sick under favorable conditions, hence they know almost nothing of its value under such conditions.

If the refereed studies are so bad, they are of no value and are not worth reading. Can you point me to a refereed study on fasting that these criticisms don't apply to?

And where can you find referees qualified in fasting? And why would a journal that makes 70% of it money from drug advertisements publish a study that bashes drugs? That would not be a good way to run a business.

Let's take a specific part of the subject: autolysis. If a doctor sees this happen hundreds of times and other doctors see it happen many times, is that not evidence that it can happen? But you call it crankery because it is not in a refereed journal.

You seem to go on these 2 rules:

1. No matter how good or how much the evidence is, it is no good unless it is generally accepted.

2. If it is generally accepted, it is good no matter how badly the study was done or how badly the refereeing was done.

Or:

1. Facts are not facts unless they are generally accepted.

2. Anything that is generally accepted is a fact even if it is not a fact.

Example:

1. If a bunch of tumors autolyze, that didn't happen, because autolysis is not generally accepted.

2. Autolysis is impossible even if it happens in hundreds of cases.

A case in point:

See the video about the woman who got rid of a tumor by means of a 24 day fast. Her former doctor thought fasting was insanity and refused to believe the tumor autolyzed and said obviously she never had a tumor and there was a mixup. This was a clash between fact and refereed scientific doctrine.

[Brant Gaede]

Water fasts strike me as dangerous. What are they suppose to accomplish? Food fasting needs potassium supplementation so you don't risk a heart attack.

--Brant

You know nothing about fasting. There are many ridiculous myths about fasting. If you are really interested in the subject of fasting, read this book, all of it.

http://www.soilandhealth.org/02/0201hyglibcat/020127shelton.III/020127.toc.htm

You know quite a bit about what I don't know and I don't have any idea how you know so much. Your attitude does strike as religious, but this second-hand argument from authority is silly.

--Brant

I am not religious. How can anyone get the idea that I'm religious? Directing you to a source of info was not intended as an argument. And it's not about authority. It is information. Why is a source of information always construed as an argument? And an argument from authority? It is not an argument and it is not authority. It is information. All you need to do is click on the link and read. Is that so difficult? You have a whole book to read, perhaps the greatest book ever written about fasting. It has enough information to keep you out of mischief for a while.

There are many reasons why people fast, some legit, some not. Religious reasons are bullshit. Better telephone connection with God is hogwash. Political reasons make no sense to me. Too sick to eat and your stomach throws the food back in your face is a perfectly legit reason.

Listen to the video at the top of this thread for a story of how fasting stopped a 16 year headache. Nothing else worked. Listen to the other video about fasting in another thread. Listen to Alan Goldhamer's long lecture. No, that's not an argument and not authority. Those things are information, facts, education, learning.

Fasting does not require potassium supplementation. Or salt. Or anything else. Only air and water and sleep and keeping comfortably warm. You must come off the fast right. Don't eat too much coming off the fast.

I didn't know the link went directly to the book. I'll read it when I have the time. Do note that fasting as a concept is more general than what you have narrowed it down to--you have said as much replying to Bob--so don't fall into the trap of circular reasoning by stating yours is the true way because other ways called fasting contradict it. If in (some types of) fasting you exclude food that provides potassium you can indeed die of a heart attack. Supplementation is so cheap and easy, I don't see how it could interfere with any fast. I have read, BTW, of a man who had inoperable throat cancer whose doctor was surprised to see him again six months after the diagnosis, cancer free and looking like the survivor of a Nazi concentration camp, the implication being he all but stopped eating and starved the cancer--that cancer tissue is more fragile than normal cells which survived as, of course, did the patient.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

Read the book and find out. The author supervised 40,000 fasts in his lifetime and seemed to know all the literature on the subject. Do you know a better source of info about fasting?

I only read refereed scientific journals. Do you have a reference to one? I will not waste my time with crank fodder.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I asked you that question. I doubt you have an answer. Can you point me to a refereed study that I can access that doesn't have any of the following criticisms?

Most of the "scientific" works on inanition have little or no value for us in a study of fasting. This is so for the following reasons:

1. Abstinence from food may mean missing one meal, or it may mean abstinence from food until death from starvation results. In these works little or no effort is made to differentiate the changes that occur during the different stages of inanition.

2. Most of the studies (in man) have been in famine victims and these are not cases of fasting, nor do these people suffer only from lack of food. There is often exposure, there is always fear and worry, there are also the effects of one-sided diets. Findings in death in famines are classed as due to inanition and are not differentiated from fasting changes.

3. In total inanition no water is taken and many of the scientific experiments withhold water as well as food from the animals. The results of such experiments cannot be used to determine the results of fasting.

4. Inanition studies are all mixed up with pathologies of all kinds that occasion more or less inanition. Many of the studies of starvation in humans have been complicated with other conditions that account for much of the findings.

5. Studies of fasting changes are so mixed up with starvation changes and changes due to dietary deficiencies and there is so little discrimination between the three types of changes, that these books become very misleading.

6. None of the experimenters have ever observed properly conducted fasts of the sick under favorable conditions, hence they know almost nothing of its value under such conditions.

If the refereed studies are so bad, they are of no value and are not worth reading. Can you point me to a refereed study on fasting that these criticisms don't apply to?

And where can you find referees qualified in fasting? And why would a journal that makes 70% of it money from drug advertisements publish a study that bashes drugs? That would not be a good way to run a business.

Let's take a specific part of the subject: autolysis. If a doctor sees this happen hundreds of times and other doctors see it happen many times, is that not evidence that it can happen? But you call it crankery because it is not in a refereed journal.

[me responding: without a double blind study the factor of observer bias has not been eliminated or minimized. That is way non-controlled studies are worthless]

You seem to go on these 2 rules:

1. No matter how good or how much the evidence is, it is no good unless it is generally accepted.

2. If it is generally accepted, it is good no matter how badly the study was done or how badly the refereeing was done.

Or:

1. Facts are not facts unless they are generally accepted.

2. Anything that is generally accepted is a fact even if it is not a fact.

Example:

1. If a bunch of tumors autolyze, that didn't happen, because autolysis is not generally accepted.

2. Autolysis is impossible even if it happens in hundreds of cases.

A case in point:

See the video about the woman who got rid of a tumor by means of a 24 day fast. Her former doctor thought fasting was insanity and refused to believe the tumor autolyzed and said obviously she never had a tumor and there was a mixup. This was a clash between fact and refereed scientific doctrine.

The burden of proof or corroboration for any practical hypothesis or technique is empirical corroboration. I don't have to prove a negative. I simply await a proof of the positive and I have yet to see one. There are loads of crank-fodder Out There and I will not waste my time going through it. I don't have to disprove a damned thing, since I am not proposing a hypothesis.

Video are no substitute for carefully construct double blind studies. You watch your videos and I will read the scientific journals.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[syrakusos]

You are both silly. jts is caught up in being holier-than-us. Ba'al insists on not bothering to find out for himself.

I just entered "water fasting" into Google Scholar. That is not the same thing as really targeting the papers in JSTOR, but it does indicate that medical scientists do study fasting.

Moreover, in earlier posts jts did point out that medical studies on fasting using animals in laboratories do support the theory that controlled fasting (with water) does increase life expectancy.

[Brant Gaede]

Patton studied water fasting in southern California before taking his troops abroad. Going without water didn't work. Food was optional, sort of.

--Brant

can I substitute Pepsi?

[jts]

Moreover, in earlier posts jts did point out that medical studies on fasting using animals in laboratories do support the theory that controlled fasting (with water) does increase life expectancy.

I don't remember saying that but it might be true. I don't count calorie restriction as the same as fasting.

[jts]

Patton studied water fasting in southern California before taking his troops abroad. Going without water didn't work. Food was optional, sort of.

--Brant

can I substitute Pepsi?

Why would anyone think going without water might be a good idea?

[Brant Gaede]

Patton studied water fasting in southern California before taking his troops abroad. Going without water didn't work. Food was optional, sort of.

--Brant

can I substitute Pepsi?

Why would anyone think going without water might be a good idea?

Patton wanted to find out how the troops functioned under such duress. He gave it up, of course.

--Brant

I'd think a true water fast would require severely limiting protein intake to take stress off the kidneys

[jts]

Patton wanted to find out how the troops functioned under such duress. He gave it up, of course.

--Brant

I'd think a true water fast would require severely limiting protein intake to take stress off the kidneys

You are confused. A 'fast' means you live on air and water and sleep and maybe sunshine and nothing else. No food. In modern time it has become fashionable to speak of 'water fast' and 'juice fast'. What these terms really mean is 'water diet' and 'juice diet'.

There is no such thing as you don't consume water, either as water or high water content food.