Fasting

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Fasting clears out weak, damaged or dead cells in the body. I'm not sure exactly how that is suppose to clear out toxins but it's possible that the cells affected by toxins may be cleared out.

Clears out through ... what mechanism again?

[Blake]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I've been eating oatmeal pretty regularly. That's one I've always liked though.

I've also eaten greens and other good food. I've just eaten too much sugar, salt, starch and fat. So switching to healthy eating isn't hard for me I think because I already ate a variety of food. I just have to cut down on some of it.

I feel really sorry for people who never had good mothers or something and never encountered healthy food.

My mother was great, but at university I devolved into very poor eating habits... maybe not as bad as some but it wasn't good. And I think I've erased the times I lived on mountain dew and chips from my memory .

So for me too... it was a matter of coming back to wholesome food. I mean I knew what it was, I just had to do it :P.

But I'm not pretending it's easy or anything. It took a deep spiritual insight to convince (almost force) me to adopt vegetarianism then veganism. But then again before then, I'd managed to avoid any dietary enlightenment - like no-one had come along and explained some other perspectives on food to me... if you don't look for these things, you wont generally encounter them.

PS. Nice thing about forums is you can just err on the side of too much advice, it'll probably be useful to SOMEONE .

[Wiglaf]

Originally posted by Blake


I feel really sorry for people who never had good mothers or something and never encountered healthy food.

My mother was great, but at university I devolved into very poor eating habits... maybe not as bad as some but it wasn't good. And I think I've erased the times I lived on mountain dew and chips from my memory .

So for me too... it was a matter of coming back to wholesome food. I mean I knew what it was, I just had to do it :P.

But I'm not pretending it's easy or anything. It took a deep spiritual insight to convince (almost force) me to adopt vegetarianism then veganism. But then again before then, I'd managed to avoid any dietary enlightenment - like no-one had come along and explained some other perspectives on food to me... if you don't look for these things, you wont generally encounter them.

So do you exercise? You seem to think starving yourself is the only way to feel good, and you seem scrawny from your picture. I think you need to ditch the loony diet, hit the weights, and hit up Popeye's every once in a while. The chicks will fawn over you and ****.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Kidicious


1 and a half weeks I was only thinking for 1 day and even drink juice. I wasn't thinking of anything like that. That must have been horrible.

Nah. I was taking a herbal combination that, among other things, depressed hunger. Your body gets used to going without food really quickly.

Suprisingly, the hardest part was, after awhile, I just missed the physical act of eating.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Wiglaf


What??http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy

My statement is that you're lucky to get to 30 if you're in the paleolithic, and it's demonstrably true. Get off whatever dope you are on.

Figures you would not know that average life expectancy is just that, an average.

As in, if you have 10 humans and 3 die at birth, 3 more at say 5 years old, and the last four all live to 60, the average life expenctancy is 28.5 years.

[Patroklos]

Or they could all have died at 28.5

[Wiglaf]

Originally posted by GePap


Figures you would not know that average life expectancy is just that, an average.

As in, if you have 10 humans and 3 die at birth, 3 more at say 5 years old, and the last four all live to 60, the average life expenctancy is 28.5 years.

Yes, which means you are LUCKY IF YOU LAST PAST 30 which is what I ****ing said.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Wiglaf


Yes, which means you are LUCKY IF YOU LAST PAST 30 which is what I ****ing said.

No, you are lucky if you make it PAST FIVE.

That is the kicker, not dying at birth or as a small child. But once you made it past childhood, you had a fair chance to make it to forty or fifty.

There is a very important difference there, and if you can't see it, well, what I am thinking, this is you we are talking about.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by GePap

That is the kicker, not dying at birth or as a small child. But once you made it past childhood, you had a fair chance to make it to forty or fifty.

But do you have any evidence that this was actually the case? Patroklos pretty clearly pointed out the flaw in your argument about averages.

[Wiglaf]

Originally posted by GePap




No, you are lucky if you make it PAST FIVE.

That is the kicker, not dying at birth or as a small child. But once you made it past childhood, you had a fair chance to make it to forty or fifty.

There is a very important difference there, and if you can't see it, well, what I am thinking, this is you we are talking about.

Disregarding infant mortality and ignoring your personal insults, here's some stats from the last 108 years only:

Average Remaining Lifetime In Years At Specified Ages, US White Males

Age /// 1900-02 /// 1949-51 /// 2002

0 /// 48.23 /// 66.31 /// 75.1

1 54.61 67.41 74.6

20 42.19 49.52 56.1

40 27.74 31.17 37.4

natl Center for Health Statistics.

Clearly shows that excluding infant mortality -- death within ~1 year of birth, we've made tremendous progress in extending lifespans since 1900. Imagine what it was like 2 mother ****ing million years ago..Granted, much of this is lack of medicine, shelter, not diet -- but his claim, as I said originally, is false. You are lucky to make it past 30, even excluding infant death.

Fossil record also confirms this. Not too many 60 year old paleolithic specimens out there buddy.

[Alinestra Covelia]

I fasted for about 5 days last Thanksgiving. I didn't have any solid food and didn't consume anything but filtered water. I did not get any medical opinion before doing this.

My findings, in a nutshell:
1. Hunger pangs showed up in waves of about 5 minutes at a time for the first two days but slowly vanished entirely.
2. I could focus reasonably well on reading and other mental exercises. (I spent the entire holiday week reading for my law classes.)
3. Obviously, you don't want to do this if you anticipate doing any strenuous physical work at all. I literally sat down at my table in the morning and read all day, breaking only for bathroom breaks and to refill my water jug. Near the end of my fast, at about 56 hours, I did take a 1.5 hour drive to another city to meet up with friends. I drove at about the speed limit, which is slow for me, but didn't want to risk any accidents. I believe my reaction time was about normal.
4. Bowel movements stopped entirely. This is probably not a good thing, and if you're going to do a reduced diet, you might want to keep eating easy-to-digest things like vegetable puree and broths to keep your intestines going.
5. I normally have difficulties getting to sleep at night. When I was fasting, this vanished entirely and I slept fairly well.
6. Sex drive vanished entirely too. Those of you familiar with my other posts here will probably understand this is quite a noteworthy development.

Starting back up, I eased into it by eating a banana first and then a soup meal some hours later. There were no problems but my first lengthy bathroom visit was very interesting from a scientific viewpoint. I'd probably best leave it at that.

This is the thread where I recorded this fast. About halfway through, the thread degenerates into a discussion about whether farting will lower or raise your weight at sea level Earth gravity.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DaShi


But do you have any evidence that this was actually the case? Patroklos pretty clearly pointed out the flaw in your argument about averages.

Just look at the data linked to in the Wikipedia file. Average life expectancy in Roman time is set at about 20 to 30 years.

If that is so, then why would the Roman legions state that a Legionare had to be a Roman citizen under 45 years of age, and serve for twenty-five years?

Even if we assume that these individual all started serving when they were 15 (which is probably too young), why would the Roman state put such onerous requirements if in reality the vast majority of legionaries died well before serving that full time?

That the Roman state had an age requirement and demanded service of that long would point to the notion that if you made it into adulthood (and thus the posibility of being a soldier) then you did have a fair chance of actually serving out that term and still having a life after. If everyone was really dying by 30, who would have taken that job?

[Wiglaf]

Rome came much later than the paleolithic

[Patroklos]

That the Roman state had an age requirement and demanded service of that long would point to the notion that if you made it into adulthood (and thus the posibility of being a soldier) then you did have a fair chance of actually serving out that term and still having a life after. If everyone was really dying by 30, who would have taken that job?

That requirement could be based, and probably was based, on your ability to physically serve. It doesn't really mater how many people made it to 45, the point was if you did you didn't meet the legions requirements.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Wiglaf


Disregarding infant mortality and ignoring your personal insults, here's some stats from the last 108 years only:

Average Remaining Lifetime In Years At Specified Ages, US White Males

Age /// 1900-02 /// 1949-51 /// 2002

0 /// 48.23 /// 66.31 /// 75.1

1 54.61 67.41 74.6

20 42.19 49.52 56.1

40 27.74 31.17 37.4

natl Center for Health Statistics.

Clearly shows that excluding infant mortality -- death within ~1 year of birth, we've made tremendous progress in extending lifespans since 1900. Imagine what it was like 2 mother ****ing million years ago..Granted, much of this is lack of medicine, shelter, not diet -- but his claim, as I said originally, is false. You are lucky to make it past 30, even excluding infant death.

If I am reading your chart correctly, in 1900, if a man made it to 20, on average they had 42 more years to go. So your chart would seem to indicate that if you made it to 20, you had a good chance of making it to 60. Yes, this is in 1900, but if you notice the vast improvement in that chart is regarding child mortality. After all, the difference in the first line is of 20 years, but by the final line it's ten years.

Fossil record also confirms this. Not too many 60 year old paleolithic specimens out there buddy.

Did I say 60? I distinctly recall saying forty or fifty, which is a significant time longer than 30.