Wet fasting?

[Valentine1699]

I’m considering doing a 72 hour water fast with just water, tea, coffee, & electrolytes to help clean out my body after my recent vacation where I indulged in some sweets / greasy food

I’m about 15% bodyfat right now with a pretty good level of muscle mass & strength

Is this fast a good Idea?

 

[Henu the Great]

No, this is unhealthy. Your body will not only burn excess fat as fuel (which is good), but also enter a catabolic state where muscle mass is being consumed for sustenance (which is bad). A better idea is a steady 100-500 deficit in daily calories depending on the wanted, and sustainable level of effort for a period of 1 to 8 weeks, or longer. Seek out what kind of level of effort suits you and use that to lose excess body fat without injuring yourself.

 

[ramses13th]

No, this is unhealthy. Your body will not only burn excess fat as fuel (which is good), but also enter a catabolic state where muscle mass is being consumed for sustenance (which is bad). A better idea is a steady 100-500 deficit in daily calories depending on the wanted, and sustainable level of effort for a period of 1 to 8 weeks, or longer. Seek out what kind of level of effort suits you and use that to lose excess body fat without injuring yourself.

Extremely good advice. Also try and have a good protein and fiber intake.

 

[OttoHart]

No, this is unhealthy. Your body will not only burn excess fat as fuel (which is good), but also enter a catabolic state where muscle mass is being consumed for sustenance (which is bad). A better idea is a steady 100-500 deficit in daily calories depending on the wanted, and sustainable level of effort for a period of 1 to 8 weeks, or longer. Seek out what kind of level of effort suits you and use that to lose excess body fat without injuring yourself.

I've had some very good results from moving to an intermittent fasting method of one day off, one day on. I have a very active digestion and I seem to be a rarer case, but I do believe it can benefit some people. With this method, I usually never surpass 36 hours, which is where I found the benefits end and the negatives start to show. It obviously also depends on what you eat when you do eat.
But 72 hours without food sounds like a stupid idea, yes.

 

[SomewhatCoherent]

No, this is unhealthy. Your body will not only burn excess fat as fuel (which is good), but also enter a catabolic state where muscle mass is being consumed for sustenance (which is bad). A better idea is a steady 100-500 deficit in daily calories depending on the wanted, and sustainable level of effort for a period of 1 to 8 weeks, or longer. Seek out what kind of level of effort suits you and use that to lose excess body fat without injuring yourself.

72hrs isn't bad for you, 72hrs with vitamin C has been clinically proven to reset your body, at 72hrs it resets the immune system and stimulates stem cell production. It should be obvious that over fasting is bad for you. Doing a 3day fast once or twice a year is scientifically good for you. Be aware that vitamin C cleans out pathogens in the blood and at really high doses can cause headaches and nausea as a result. There are current ongoing studies/research that are showing evidence of how fasting with vitamin C inhibits hard to treat cancers. If the goal is just to lose some weight or detox shorter 1 day fasts might be better. You could also look into intermediate fasting or eating once a day where you get all the daily calories in 1 really good meal instead of 3. The goal with fasting is not to starve the body only to reset it.

 

[Henu the Great]

72hrs isn't bad for you, 72hrs with vitamin C has been clinically proven to reset your body, at 72hrs it resets the immune system and stimulates stem cell production. It should be obvious that over fasting is bad for you. Doing a 3day fast once or twice a year is scientifically good for you. Be aware that vitamin C cleans out pathogens in the blood and at really high doses can cause headaches and nausea as a result. There are current ongoing studies/research that are showing evidence of how fasting with vitamin C inhibits hard to treat cancers. If the goal is just to lose some weight or detox shorter 1 day fasts might be better. You could also look into intermediate fasting or eating once a day where you get all the daily calories in 1 really good meal instead of 3. The goal with fasting is not to starve the body only to reset it.

A person who lacks adequate adaptations is not going to benefit from a 72-hour period of no nutrition, as part of that time would be spent in a state of malnutrition.

One does not need to starve them to this extent to get health benefits such as one can get from intermittent fasting or similar.

 

[SomewhatCoherent]

72hrs has different benefits from intermittent fasting which why I mentioned different options for fasting. Valentine1699 doesn't sound unhealthy and is planning to take electrolytes. I was merely pointing out that 72hrs does have clinically proven health benefits. Someone can always abort a 72 hr fast if it doesn't feel right. For record its the temporary state of malnutrition that trigger the body to reset itself by consuming the less than optimal cells in the body. Once the person starts eating food again it triggers a growth response in the body and if I remember correctly its also causes the white blood cells to get remade boosting the immune system. 72hrs has the most health benefits as long as its not abused and this is clinically proven. Going over 72hrs is where body goes into survival mode where malnutrition becomes a problem. I thought it was implied with "It should be obvious that over fasting is bad for you" that someone who isn't prepared shouldn't attempt a 3 day fast. My post wasn't an attack against you, I do believe you are misinformed on how fasting works.

 

[Henu the Great]

72hrs has different benefits from intermittent fasting which why I mentioned different options for fasting. Valentine1699 doesn't sound unhealthy and is planning to take electrolytes. I was merely pointing out that 72hrs does have clinically proven health benefits. Someone can always abort a 72 hr fast if it doesn't feel right. For record its the temporary state of malnutrition that trigger the body to reset itself by consuming the less than optimal cells in the body. Once the person starts eating food again it triggers a growth response in the body and if I remember correctly its also causes the white blood cells to get remade boosting the immune system. 72hrs has the most health benefits as long as its not abused and this is clinically proven. Going over 72hrs is where body goes into survival mode where malnutrition becomes a problem. I thought it was implied with "It should be obvious that over fasting is bad for you" that someone who isn't prepared shouldn't attempt a 3 day fast. My post wasn't an attack against you, I do believe you are misinformed on how fasting works.

I brought up intermittent fasting because that does not actually injure a person doing it as there is no catabolic state involved.

What you are advocating for is essentially to detox a body in a catabolic state which is unhealthy. Note: When a body is in a catabolic state, by default, it does not judge what kind of cell is being consumed for sustenance. It targets everything, including useful stuff. This is why your approach is not a good one to take. Especially when we do not know what kind of body-mind connection the person has, and we also do not know how developed their aerobic system is which has the potential to enable them to utilize fats in a more efficient manner potentially enabling them to fast in a healthy manner for longer periods of time (still questionable why anyone should do this as this can be done in a more controlled manner for a longer period of time without injuring yourself). This is something that does not become by itself to anyone, it is something that has to be achieved over a longer period of time, usually over multiple years.

Many of the things you brought up can work in certain situations for certain individuals who are 'equipped' to handle such strain (and even then, haste makes waste, so take your time losing excess), but as general advice, it is very harmful. For example, a blanket statement of going over 72 hours without nutrition is a line to be careful of is just not true.

 

[SomewhatCoherent]

We can agree to disagree. I'm using clinical information validating thousands of years fasting experience that says 72hrs has the most benefits when not abused. For the most part I eat once a day, I know others (its fairly rare). There is a huge difference between intermittent fasting and a 48hr or 72hr fast (when its not abused). In my original post I said this "If the goal is just to lose some weight or detox shorter 1 day fasts might be better. You could also look into intermediate fasting or eating once a day where you get all the daily calories in 1 really good meal instead of 3. The goal with fasting is not to starve the body only to reset it."

As I mentioned fasting for 72hrs isn't meant for losing weight its meant to reset the body. In 72hrs you are not going consume your entire bodies resources unless you are already starving, if you are healthy its not a problem. If you are not equipped to do a 3-fast you will lose if there access to food (there is a difference between fasting and starving). During slow times of the year I burn 3000 calories a day on average and busy times about 4000 a day, most of the 3day fasts I've done was during working days when I'm busy because its a distraction from the hunger and to troll some of my weaker colleagues (conservatively 9000 calories during a fast). There is going to be a last meal before starting the fast, so really its only 2 days of no calories (6000) or just under 1.5 lb of fat burned. I'm aware the body will consume more than just fat its just a reference. I burn more calories than the average person.

On day 3 the strength/energy level drops about 20% and there is good amount of hunger. At 73hrs there could be a bit of a induced food coma (Its a bad idea to binge when coming out of fast and at the same time hard not too), After getting some sleep there is a spike in energy that last for a few weeks. Fasting to reset the body is built into human dna, it also starves out parasites (if infected). You don't have to fast if you don't want to. If you are relatively healthy with good weight you are equipped to do a 72hr fast (as Valentine1699 suggests). I have no way of proving this to you but just for fun I'll do 3 day day fast with a stupid (not recommend) dose vitamin C (12g). I usually take electrolytes and some vitamins (no protein powder) prevent dehydration and over flushing the good stuff out......and caffiene/black coffee.

You have inspired me. I'll should be around 12hrs after this post gets approved.

 

[Aquarius]

You can do a raw milk only fasting and it's gonna be extremely healthy for you. But nothing else is as nourishing and if you will do it with only the stuff you mentioned it's gonna be real unhealthy.

 

[SomewhatCoherent]

Can't get raw milk because its healthy for you, kills parasites and its one of the best things for your heart. I give up fasting debate as I'm just going in circles here. Everyone is free to believe what they want when it comes to diet and nutrition. Fasting once and awhile isn't unhealthy, its been practiced for thousands of years across multiple cultures, the benefits are backed by science. I know this anecdotal evidence, I have done 3day fasts before and there is a few week buff that comes from it after eating again. Sure there is a process to preparing and executing a fast so its not starvation. There is also a process to eating a healthy diet and exercising.

 

[SomewhatCoherent]

I forgot to mention in that post, its easier to get hard drugs around here than it is to get raw milk.

 

[Henu the Great]

We can agree to disagree.

I will not agree with something like this given that you push it to others. For me, the red line is when something harmful is promoted to the community whereas what you, or any other individual do personally does not concern me.

I'm using clinical information validating thousands of years fasting experience that says 72hrs has the most benefits when not abused. For the most part I eat once a day, I know others (its fairly rare). There is a huge difference between intermittent fasting and a 48hr or 72hr fast (when its not abused). In my original post I said this "If the goal is just to lose some weight or detox shorter 1 day fasts might be better. You could also look into intermediate fasting or eating once a day where you get all the daily calories in 1 really good meal instead of 3. The goal with fasting is not to starve the body only to reset it."

Please define "when not abused". What does that mean? How does a person abuse fasting?

Now, the goal is never to lose weight, but to lose (excess) fat. Because no rational person wants to lose lean muscle mass, or muscle mass in general. Your approach, however, does just that. You can invoke "clinical information" or "clinical studies" all day long, but without actual research papers there is no point (and serves no purpose in argument) as in this age research can be anything from absolute garbage (yet people accept them, why, that is beyond me) to world-changing discoveries. Since the topic is much more complex than the time spent in certain ways (individual differences exist, which I point out, stop ignoring this fact) it is quite disheartening to see such low-quality argumentation.

As I mentioned fasting for 72hrs isn't meant for losing weight its meant to reset the body. In 72hrs you are not going consume your entire bodies resources unless you are already starving, if you are healthy its not a problem. If you are not equipped to do a 3-fast you will lose if there access to food (there is a difference between fasting and starving). During slow times of the year I burn 3000 calories a day on average and busy times about 4000 a day, most of the 3day fasts I've done was during working days when I'm busy because its a distraction from the hunger and to troll some of my weaker colleagues (conservatively 9000 calories during a fast). There is going to be a last meal before starting the fast, so really its only 2 days of no calories (6000) or just under 1.5 lb of fat burned. I'm aware the body will consume more than just fat its just a reference. I burn more calories than the average person.

On day 3 the strength/energy level drops about 20% and there is good amount of hunger. At 73hrs there could be a bit of a induced food coma (Its a bad idea to binge when coming out of fast and at the same time hard not too), After getting some sleep there is a spike in energy that last for a few weeks. Fasting to reset the body is built into human dna, it also starves out parasites (if infected). You don't have to fast if you don't want to. If you are relatively healthy with good weight you are equipped to do a 72hr fast (as Valentine1699 suggests). I have no way of proving this to you but just for fun I'll do 3 day day fast with a stupid (not recommend) dose vitamin C (12g). I usually take electrolytes and some vitamins (no protein powder) prevent dehydration and over flushing the good stuff out......and caffiene/black coffee.

You have inspired me. I'll should be around 12hrs after this post gets approved.

All of this is anecdotal (which is fine in its own right), and again, do whatever you want. Simply stop promoting this harmful practice to this community. Thank you.

 

[HPS Lydia]

It's mainly fasting for enemy religion reasons that we are against here in the JoS. And fasting to the point of weakness and dizziness is bad because it will open you to enemy programmings and thoughtforms, and weakness in general is to be avoided in Spiritual Satanism. A strong body helps a strong mind and soul.

But fasting for short periods of time, for certain people, for certain reasons, is fine. I've known people who felt so much better after a fast of a few days, making sure to get vitamins but no food. The OP wrote doing this after eating too much greasy food, so a short fast can help clean the system.

If you decide to do a fast for health reasons, go with how you feel. If you feel starving and like you need a steak dinner feast, quit the fast. If you're feeling great, then continue until you don't feel great anymore. If you feel alert and revitalized during your fast, great. Once you start feeling weak, fuel your body.

Always do what makes you feel strong and healthy.

 

[Wotanwarrior]

Using fasting to lose weight as mentioned above is a mistake. A short fast of 24 or 36 hours can be beneficial to give your digestive system a rest if it is very overloaded, to purify and eliminate toxins, but fasting for days as some yogis promote does not provide any benefit and is extremely harmful.

 

[SomewhatCoherent]

I gave up on this debate its a circular argument. Don't do a 3 day fast if you don't want too. I did a 3 day fast, as I said would. The last few hours were kinda hard especially while cooking to have the meal ready after the 72hr mark. At 42hrs I started to feel reasonably hungry and fasting became more a mental challenge. As stated in my other post the goal of fasting for 72hrs isn't to lose weight its to reset the body. Its resets the digestion, blood sugar, hormones, immune system and gets the body producing stem cells. My 72 hr ended late, after eating and good nights sleep the energy levels fully rebounded. I didn't get dizzy, that could happen with some people, my energy levels did drop last day (as expected) and it was harder to focus only because I thinking of food. My skin improved nicely as well and inflammation dropped around the body. Yes this is a anecdotal experience. Nobody is forcing anyone to fast.

I was experimenting with mega dose vitamin C before this topic was posted it seemed to amp up the detox properties of fasting, that being said its part of an independent experiment. Enemy religions might promote fasting it doesn't mean its not beneficial (they tend to steal ideas), everyone seems to disagree but 3 days is a short term fast as far as I'm concerned. Abusing fasting: is fasting too frequently to lose weight which becomes starvation when its purpose is to reset the body. Maybe everyone else is built differently, all 36hrs does is empty the digestive track and maybe drop the blood sugar which happens in 12-24hrs. 24-36 hr fast are meant for losing excess fat more than resetting the body which I never disagreed with.

If the goal is just to lose some weight or detox shorter 1 day fasts might be better. You could also look into intermediate fasting or eating once a day where you get all the daily calories in 1 really good meal instead of 3. The goal with fasting is not to starve the body only to reset it.

In my original post

I will not agree with something like this given that you push it to others. For me, the red line is when something harmful is promoted to the community whereas what you, or any other individual do personally does not concern me.

I strongly disagree that 72hr fasting is dangerous, however you feel the opposite. I'll leave it alone and you can take the victory. I'm not going to reply to this topic anymore if its just going to create animosity in the community. I said what I believe to be true from both research and personal experience. People can do their own research on fasting and try it if they want.