What's the longest time you've been without food

[psteng19]

Originally posted by: Mwilding

Originally posted by: Kaido
Studies have shown fasting once a month for 24 hours is good for you. Do it on the first of every month - from dinner time Saturday to dinnertime Sunday, or whenever you don't have to work and don't need your body's energy really bad.

Cut sugar, junk food, tobacco, alcohol, etc. out of your diet, eat a salad every day, and drink plenty of water.

Show me one peer reviewed medical journal article espousing this idea. Go ahead - I dare you.

You see, that's where we as Americans rely too much on western science for everything and shun any other type of alternative.

A lot of homeopathic, holistic and alternative medicine from the far east has existed for thousands of years, with no scientific reasoning behind it - yet it is still used today and has worked for many.

Take acupuncture for example.
It is not an accepted method of treatment here in the US -meaning it is not a conventional form of treatment where a "normal" M.D. would not refer to.
But ask someone who has used it for treating pain (post-surgical, trauma, etc.) and they will tell you it has worked where other conventional methods have failed (chiropractic and osteopathic therapy, etc.).

The thing about eastern medicine is that they rely more on natural and herbal approaches to allow the body to heal itself.
Left alone, the body is capable of restoring itself (barring terminal illness which is likely something caused by our own negligence anyway, except for congenital defect). It is the crap that we put into our own bodies that's f'ing ourselves up (toxins from our processed foods, pesticides/insecticides, smoking, inhaling toxic fumes, etc.).

You think studies published by a respected journal is the authoritative over all else?
Look at some of the drugs that the FDA recently passed. How many were recently recalled?

Don't be blinded by the limited understanding that our culture has and think our studies are the final say of what works and what doesn't.

 

[Uppsala9496]

I went with a water only diet for 7 days last year. Had some colon swelling, so I wasn't allowed to eat food for 7 days. It was just water and chicken broth.
You get used to the hunger after a while, however, your sh!ts are all liquid and not pretty. That was the worst part of it. The fatigue sucked too.
Oh, and I ended up losing 13 odd pounds.

 

[MetalMat]

Originally posted by: xirtam

Originally posted by: MetalMat

Originally posted by: xirtam
I've gone a week, but it was just because I never got hungry, and when I did, I was too lazy to get something to eat. After a few days my body starts to shut down the hunger sensors and I don't feel hungry, much like getting a second wind when going without sleep.

Again, you must be a pretty small dude.

5'11, around 140. I don't get hunger pains until it's too late, and if I wait it out, they usually go away. Been trying to eat in a more healthy pattern, but I just don't have the motivation. Hunger doesn't do it for me. I'm one of those weird people who just doesn't like to eat.

Thats cool and all, my roomate is the same way. However, my roomate is about 5'10" and weighs around 110 lbs, so at least you got some size on him. Me on the otherhand, I love a good meal and I love good cookin

 

[imported_Reck]

i've went 10 days with no food. no joke.

 

[GasX]

Originally posted by: psteng19

Originally posted by: Mwilding

Originally posted by: Kaido
Studies have shown fasting once a month for 24 hours is good for you. Do it on the first of every month - from dinner time Saturday to dinnertime Sunday, or whenever you don't have to work and don't need your body's energy really bad.

Cut sugar, junk food, tobacco, alcohol, etc. out of your diet, eat a salad every day, and drink plenty of water.

Show me one peer reviewed medical journal article espousing this idea. Go ahead - I dare you.

You see, that's where we as Americans rely too much on western science for everything and shun any other type of alternative.

A lot of homeopathic, holistic and alternative medicine from the far east has existed for thousands of years, with no scientific reasoning behind it - yet it is still used today and has worked for many.

Actually a lot of it has been investigated and supported by legitimate research...

Take acupuncture for example.
It is not an accepted method of treatment here in the US -meaning it is not a conventional form of treatment where a "normal" M.D. would not refer to.
But ask someone who has used it for treating pain (post-surgical, trauma, etc.) and they will tell you it has worked where other conventional methods have failed (chiropractic and osteopathic therapy, etc.).

Accupuncture is well doccumented as working in many cases - even if noone can figure it out...

The thing about eastern medicine is that they rely more on natural and herbal approaches to allow the body to heal itself.
Left alone, the body is capable of restoring itself (barring terminal illness which is likely something caused by our own negligence anyway, except for congenital defect). It is the crap that we put into our own bodies that's f'ing ourselves up (toxins from our processed foods, pesticides/insecticides, smoking, inhaling toxic fumes, etc.).

You think studies published by a respected journal is the authoritative over all else?
Look at some of the drugs that the FDA recently passed. How many were recently recalled?

Peer reviewed journals publish information that has been tested and made public for scrutiny by the public - expert and layman, so yes, any legitimate claim should have research supporting it.

Regarding the recent drug recalls, they were voluntary market withdrawals made by the drug companies to limit lawsuits. For example, data from scientific research showed that Vioxx could increase the chance of cardiovascular "events".

1. this data was brought to light by real research
2. The data actually shows a minute chance of anyone taking the max dose for a year seeing any increased risk.
3. As previously stated the drug was recalled to limit lawsuit liability not for serious risk issues.

Don't be blinded by the limited understanding that our culture has and think our studies are the final say of what works and what doesn't.

I am not blinded, but bullshit is bullshit and science has a great way of separating the wheat from the chaff and in the case of "fasting to cleanse the body of toxins", I again challenge someone to find a peer reviewed medical journal espousing the practice.

 

[psteng19]

Originally posted by: Mwilding

Originally posted by: psteng19

Originally posted by: Mwilding
Show me one peer reviewed medical journal article espousing this idea. Go ahead - I dare you.

You see, that's where we as Americans rely too much on western science for everything and shun any other type of alternative.

A lot of homeopathic, holistic and alternative medicine from the far east has existed for thousands of years, with no scientific reasoning behind it - yet it is still used today and has worked for many.

Actually a lot of it has been investigated and supported by legitimate research...

Take acupuncture for example.
It is not an accepted method of treatment here in the US -meaning it is not a conventional form of treatment where a "normal" M.D. would not refer to.
But ask someone who has used it for treating pain (post-surgical, trauma, etc.) and they will tell you it has worked where other conventional methods have failed (chiropractic and osteopathic therapy, etc.).

Accupuncture is well doccumented as working in many cases - even if noone can figure it out...

The thing about eastern medicine is that they rely more on natural and herbal approaches to allow the body to heal itself.
Left alone, the body is capable of restoring itself (barring terminal illness which is likely something caused by our own negligence anyway, except for congenital defect). It is the crap that we put into our own bodies that's f'ing ourselves up (toxins from our processed foods, pesticides/insecticides, smoking, inhaling toxic fumes, etc.).

You think studies published by a respected journal is the authoritative over all else?
Look at some of the drugs that the FDA recently passed. How many were recently recalled?

Peer reviewed journals publish information that has been tested and made public for scrutiny by the public - expert and layman, so yes, any legitimate claim should have research supporting it.

Regarding the recent drug recalls, they were voluntary market withdrawals made by the drug companies to limit lawsuits. For example, data from scientific research showed that Vioxx could increase the chance of cardiovascular "events".

1. this data was brought to light by real research
2. The data actually shows a minute chance of anyone taking the max dose for a year seeing any increased risk.
3. As previously stated the drug was recalled to limit lawsuit liability not for serious risk issues.

Don't be blinded by the limited understanding that our culture has and think our studies are the final say of what works and what doesn't.

I am not blinded, but bullshit is bullshit and science has a great way of separating the wheat from the chaff and in the case of "fasting to cleanse the body of toxins", I again challenge someone to find a peer reviewed medical journal espousing the practice.

Again, you are relying too much on our sciences.
Studies tell you one thing today, and the exact opposite tomorrow.

First they say that being lean is healthy (lean, not skinny).
Now they tell you being slightly overweight is more healthy than being at optimum weight.
They tell you to stay well hydrated while jogging. Now they tell you excess water is bad for you while exercising.
A glass of red wine a day is good for the heart. Then they retract and say it has no benefit.

Which study are you to believe? How do you know they won't change their mind again on their next study?

Accupuncture is well doccumented as working in many cases - even if noone can figure it out...

Even you admitted it yourself.
No one can figure out acupuncture, yet there are many who will now swear by it.

Similar reasoning behind fasting.
I'm sure there are many documented cases where fasting has improved ones health.

I'm going by firsthand testimony on how it's been beneficial for them (and on internet sources to a much lesser degree).
I'm on my 40th hour and feel fine

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: psteng19

Originally posted by: Mwilding

Originally posted by: psteng19

Originally posted by: Mwilding
Show me one peer reviewed medical journal article espousing this idea. Go ahead - I dare you.

You see, that's where we as Americans rely too much on western science for everything and shun any other type of alternative.

A lot of homeopathic, holistic and alternative medicine from the far east has existed for thousands of years, with no scientific reasoning behind it - yet it is still used today and has worked for many.

Actually a lot of it has been investigated and supported by legitimate research...

Take acupuncture for example.
It is not an accepted method of treatment here in the US -meaning it is not a conventional form of treatment where a "normal" M.D. would not refer to.
But ask someone who has used it for treating pain (post-surgical, trauma, etc.) and they will tell you it has worked where other conventional methods have failed (chiropractic and osteopathic therapy, etc.).

Accupuncture is well doccumented as working in many cases - even if noone can figure it out...

The thing about eastern medicine is that they rely more on natural and herbal approaches to allow the body to heal itself.
Left alone, the body is capable of restoring itself (barring terminal illness which is likely something caused by our own negligence anyway, except for congenital defect). It is the crap that we put into our own bodies that's f'ing ourselves up (toxins from our processed foods, pesticides/insecticides, smoking, inhaling toxic fumes, etc.).

You think studies published by a respected journal is the authoritative over all else?
Look at some of the drugs that the FDA recently passed. How many were recently recalled?

Peer reviewed journals publish information that has been tested and made public for scrutiny by the public - expert and layman, so yes, any legitimate claim should have research supporting it.

Regarding the recent drug recalls, they were voluntary market withdrawals made by the drug companies to limit lawsuits. For example, data from scientific research showed that Vioxx could increase the chance of cardiovascular "events".

1. this data was brought to light by real research
2. The data actually shows a minute chance of anyone taking the max dose for a year seeing any increased risk.
3. As previously stated the drug was recalled to limit lawsuit liability not for serious risk issues.

Don't be blinded by the limited understanding that our culture has and think our studies are the final say of what works and what doesn't.

I am not blinded, but bullshit is bullshit and science has a great way of separating the wheat from the chaff and in the case of "fasting to cleanse the body of toxins", I again challenge someone to find a peer reviewed medical journal espousing the practice.

Again, you are relying too much on our sciences.
Studies tell you one thing today, and the exact opposite tomorrow.

First they say that being lean is healthy (lean, not skinny).
Now they tell you being slightly overweight is more healthy than being at optimum weight.
They tell you to stay well hydrated while jogging. Now they tell you excess water is bad for you while exercising.
A glass of red wine a day is good for the heart. Then they retract and say it has no benefit.

Which study are you to believe? How do you know they won't change their mind again on their next study?

Accupuncture is well doccumented as working in many cases - even if noone can figure it out...

Even you admitted it yourself.
No one can figure out acupuncture, yet there are many who will now swear by it.

Similar reasoning behind fasting.
I'm sure there are many documented cases where fasting has improved ones health.

I'm going by firsthand testimony on how it's been beneficial for them (and on internet sources to a much lesser degree).
I'm on my 40th hour and feel fine

oh no man, is the western science, man. Fasting is good man, it's natural, man :roll:

How about you face the facts rather jsut using dumb rhetoric to justify fvcking up your metabolism and body. It's really cool to let your body consume your muscle ...

How about trying to eat HEALTHY? Every single nutritionist would b!tchslap you for thinking that starving your body is a great thing to do.

 

[ajskydiver]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: cobalt

Originally posted by: batmang
ive gone a week on just water, ham sandwish once a day, and tons of ciggarrettes. i did that for about 5-6 days, and then realized.... i NEEDED food.

i dont even know why i did it, i guess was just curious, i lost 25lbs in the process, VERY unhealthy.

i went from 180 to 155 in one week.

It was probably just water weight.

Uh... why? All he was consuming was water.

Actually, it looks like BS from batmang.

-3500 calories per pound x 25 lbs = -87,500 calories/6 days = -14,583.33 calories/day.

Yeah, that's possible. :thumbsdown:

~AJ

Edit:

Originally posted by: psteng19
They tell you to stay well hydrated while jogging. Now they tell you excess water is bad for you while exercising.

The marathoner who recently died from too much water intake was actually gaining weight while running...way, way too much going in and it threw off their electolyte levels.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: MwildingPeer reviewed journals publish information that has been tested and made public for scrutiny by the public - expert and layman, so yes, any legitimate claim should have research supporting it.

Regarding the recent drug recalls, they were voluntary market withdrawals made by the drug companies to limit lawsuits. For example, data from scientific research showed that Vioxx could increase the chance of cardiovascular "events".

1. this data was brought to light by real research
2. The data actually shows a minute chance of anyone taking the max dose for a year seeing any increased risk.
3. As previously stated the drug was recalled to limit lawsuit liability not for serious risk issues

I feel I should interject on this. Vioxx in a double blind long term study caused 7 additional cardiovascular events in a group of approximately 1000 people as oppossed to the number of events in the control group. That is a .7% elevated risk of cardiovascular trouble.

There are 25 million people out there, including myself, that would sign a bloody waiver for Merck agreeing to never sue them over Vioxx and pay $40 a month to them for the rest of the patent if they would put it back on the market. It was a fvcking miracle drug for me, and in my 30's with arthritis so bad in my hands that I can predict the weather without even seeing outside I don't look forward to a future without Vioxx.