Fasting

[WyldFyre]

The body shutting down theory is exactly why I heard that you will consume muscle first ,as your body will hang onto the fat untill things get desperate. Of course that theory was given to me by 24 Hour Fitness ,and is only a result of the extensive research they've done.

I can see merits for Soilmans argument though ,especially if muscle gets converted to fat ,but of course at 24 Im sure their hypothesis was formed through body fat measurements and fat to muscle ratios on actual people.

[MsRuthieB]

Here's an Indian guy who fasted for 411 days. It's said that he's not actually eaten any solid food since 1995.

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_748621.html

[luckiecharms]

wow!!! 411 Days? and i read the article (most of it) that guy must be a nut. but i mean if he doesnt need food to survive I think thats kinda cool in a way. Neat anyways. im amazed.

[soilman]

mrb writes:
=============
I never really knew that. But it makes sense now that I think about it. I alway believed along the line like LF does.
==============

Well, it seems plausible that there might be something to the claim that fasting helps eliminate accumulated toxins from the system. Toxins that are eliminated with difficulty in the urine, feces, perspiration, and paranasal sinus excretions, tend to accumulate in fatty tissue. Perhaps later the body can work on them slowly. Meanwhile, they are in stored tissue rather than in tissue that is at the forefront of chemical activity, and thus out of blood circulation, and not interfering with cellular function of more important organ-cells. They are in there with the fat cells. With may slowly work on separating out the toxins or putting them into the blood stream for detoxification by the liver or kidneys. When you start using this fatty tissue for fuel, the toxins that are in it may perhaps be more easily excreted in the urine etcetera, because you body is not busy excreting toxins that are actually in most or all of the foof we ingest. Since energy is not being used for elimation of ingested toxins, it becomes availble for eliminating fat-stored toxins.

It makes a lot of sense but I don't know if it has been proven.

[Kitzy]

i've never tried fasting, not sure i'd like to! a few times i havnt eaten till the evening due to circumstances but usually i always have to eat breakfast cos if i dont i get so hungry i literally throw up! occasionally i've managed not to and if i get over that i dont feel hungry at all until the next morning.

[soilman]

WF writes: "The body shutting down theory is exactly why I heard that you will consume muscle first ,as your body will hang onto the fat untill things get desperate."

It's exactly the other way around.

I don't know what "24 hour fitness" but I would suggest checking a high school health or high school biology text, and then a college bio text, and then a nutrition 101 for nutritionists and dieticians text.

[soilman]

Muscle builds up in response to exercise that stresses it. Muscle will, however, be consumed if it is not being used, stressed, regulary. You will revert to your pre-muscle-building level. Even if you have a balanced diet, or a high-protein diet.

[Stem]

Originally posted by soilman
Well, it seems plausible that there might be something to the claim that fasting helps eliminate accumulated toxins from the system. Toxins that are eliminated with difficulty in the urine, feces, perspiration, and paranasal sinus excretions, tend to accumulate in fatty tissue. Perhaps later the body can work on them slowly. Meanwhile, they are in stored tissue rather than in tissue that is at the forefront of chemical activity, and thus out of blood circulation, and not interfering with cellular function of more important organ-cells.

For that mater, anytime you burn fat (where toxins are stored), you are "eliminating" toxins from the system. For example, doctor's recommend that women not diet while breastfeeding because toxins can leak into breast milk.

It would be interesting though to know if the excretion of toxins itself (and the period in which toxins flow through the system prior to excretion) can be harmful, and whether any such harm is worse than the harm (if any) of those toxins simply residing in the body. The best thing, IMO, is to avoid ingestion/contact with toxins altogether.

[soilman]

You know, that might explain why people have difficulty limiting their intake enough, to lose weight. If they do, stored toxins enter their blood stream -- and may make them feel crappy. Perhaps if they keep eating at least enough to store more fat, rather than burn stored fat, they can avoid that happening. Just a hypothesis.

Avoidance of toxins altogether is impossible. The very amino acids we absolutely need to either intake, or synthesize, produce toxins if we eat slightly more than we actually need -- which is necessary. The process of breaking up excess amino acids produces toxins. Plus plant and animal foods are all loaded with all kinds of things other than the nutritive starches, sugars, fats, and proteins. Just a leaf of lettuce has an array of toxic chemicals, as does a stalk of brocolli. So do potatoes. Some foods are lower in toxins -- like polished rice -- but these are also lower in micronutrients. So you must ingest a slew of toxins unless you want to eat chemically produced food having only the known macro and micro nutrients. But even these produce toxins in the process of being digested and metabolized.

[soilman]

That said, some foods are clearly more toxic than other, and are best eaten sparingly. You don't want to eat huge quantities of almonds -- you'll get small quantities of cyanide. Spinach has a good amount of toxic oxalic acid. Citric acid is mildly toxic. Many of the micronutrients are toxic if you take them in large amounts. Iodine is absolutely necessary as a micronutrient, but large amounts are a nasty toxin.

[Stem]

Originally posted by soilman
You know, that might explain why people have difficulty limiting their intake enough, to lose weight. If they do, stored toxins enter their blood stream -- and may make them feel crappy. Perhaps if they keep eating at least enough to store more fat, rather than burn stored fat, they can avoid that happening. Just a hypothesis.

I see your point but unless there is a net loss of fat, there won't be weight loss (well at least not a weight loss from reduction of fat). Maybe the recommendation should be toward slower weight loss (including a diet with moderate fat intake).


Originally posted by soilman
Avoidance of toxins altogether is impossible. The very amino acids we absolutely need to either intake, or synthesize, produce toxins if we eat slightly more than we actually need -- which is necessary. The process of breaking up excess amino acids produces toxins. Plus plant and animal foods are all loaded with all kinds of things other than the nutritive starches, sugars, fats, and proteins. Just a leaf of lettuce has an array of toxic chemicals, as does a stalk of brocolli. So do potatoes. Some foods are lower in toxins -- like polished rice -- but these are also lower in micronutrients. So you must ingest a slew of toxins unless you want to eat chemically produced food having only the known macro and micro nutrients. But even these produce toxins in the process of being digested and metabolized.


Originally posted by soilman
That said, some foods are clearly more toxic than other, and are best eaten sparingly. You don't want to eat huge quantities of almonds -- you'll get small quantities of cyanide. Spinach has a good amount of toxic oxalic acid. Citric acid is mildly toxic. Many of the micronutrients are toxic if you take them in large amounts. Iodine is absolutely necessary as a micronutrient, but large amounts are a nasty toxin.

I was actually thinking along the lines of toxins such as dioxin and pesticides which I have heard the body can store in fatty deposits. Ingestion of such toxins is, at worst, not unavoidable. Rather than fasting once or twice a year to remove these toxins, it would be healthier to avoid them as much as possible.

Your examples are of metabolic waste, food toxins and the toxicity of certain excess minerals. The toxic excess of certain minerals can be avoided and should be avoided. Food toxins are more difficult to avoid. Metabolic waste appears imposible to avoid. If food toxins and matabolic waste can be stored in body fat, then weight loss could be helpful in their "excretion."

[Avalon]

I've decided rather than fasting, I will do a slowing.

[Avalon]

(Bah-dunh-dunh-ching!)

[soilman]

Stem writes:
==============
Ingestion of such toxins (dioxin, ddt, etc) is, at worst, not unavoidable. Rather than fasting once or twice a year to remove these toxins, it would be healthier to avoid them as much as possible.
==============

Yup.

==================
Metabolic waste appears imposible to avoid.
===============

Yes, but it is possible to minimize it. For example, carbohydrates are useful for providing energy but don't have the nitrogen compounds necessary for growth of tissue; proteins can do both. So you could eat relatively small amounts of carbs and relatively large amts of protein, and meet all your energy and matter needs. However by limiting protein to a little more (for safety's sake) than the actual amount you need, and getting your energy from carbs instead of proteins, you produce less metabolic waste, and the waste you produce is lower in toxicity.

I can't remember all the details, but what i seem to recall is that uric acid and urea, from protein, are more toxic than carbon dioxide, from carbs, that is, they are more time consuming and more energy-consuming, to eliminate, excrete.