I did this too myself in 2013 with roughly the same numbers (initial body weight ~92kg losing 20kg in 7 weeks most of it body mass). Also I didn't take supplements and cut down to tap water only (no food or soups or anything). Reintroducing my body to food was challenging to say the least.
I had prior experience doing such a diet once before (for 21 days a year earlier) knowing 8 weeks could be realistic for me to maintain at the time. I stopped a week early because even I boiled the tap water, the residual chlorine left over wasn't properly broken down by my body (food helps with that normally) and caused strong reactions every time I tried to drink (nausea even vomiting in final week). So not being able to hydrate myself I needed to stop very abruptly.
After I reintroduced my body to food I ended up in hospital a week later due to kidney stones (presumably a side effect of the starvation diet and flushing them out)
The hunger goes away after the 3rd/4th day and I was even able to go for a small run every other day until week 5. My motivation for it was neither religious nor to loose weight (although I had 10kg too much compared to my ideal shape 5 years before). People thought I was crazy for doing it (and I didn't tell anyone about it while it happened and also refused to discuss it with my doctor). I wanted to see how my body (and mind) reacts to extreme pressure like that. Also I felt experienced enough at the time to do this I would not recommend pushing too far into the extreme especially if it's your first time. Also worth noting that my weight never bounced back and I managed to maintain my ideal even after 5 years later (only gained 5kg mostly bodymass I lost not so much the fat).
My mental abilities (creativity, concentration, focus) were incredible especially until week 5. What I learned is as the body prepares for starvation it also releases huge amounts of energy that is stored up. Feels like having super powers. The body makes these reserves available so we can give it a final push for hunting or finding food (when homo sapiens is out in nature trying to survive I guess). It's probably why fasting is such a big thing in every religion.
Once I overcame the initial hunger feeling of the first days it became noticeable. It then increased peaking in week 3 to 5 but present even until the final days.
In the last days I became aware that every day I continued it was another day where my mind "won" against my body, and this scared me increasingly because I was no longer sure if I was still listening objectively to my body or if I was trying to prove something just for the sake of it. (e.g. "you came already that far now don't give up" -> this reasoning worked well for doing marathons sports but felt was dangerous to apply here). It was like my body telling me that it would no longer support my BS, ... but not via a hunger feeling as in initial days but I became so weak that walking more than few meters required a rest. Even speaking for more than 10 mins was tedious.
>..the residual chlorine left over wasn't properly broken down by my body
When I fast, regular water tastes terrible, I can only drink distilled water. And for those that feel like arguing about distilled water, there's a series of arguments in my account on this topic already.
Purified water lacks minerals and ions such as calcium that play key roles in biological functions such as in nervous system homeostasis, and are normally found in potable water.
I went back and answered this question[1] in your thread. However some of your questions give the impression that you are not familiar with a high-school level of chemistry. I would recommend reading up acid-base reactions to help learn more about these sorts of questions.
Rain isn't distilled water, as fumes from things like cars or other forms of pollution can cause the water to contain harmful components that can be removed using distillation (think acid rain). While the water cycle looks (at first glance) like a distillation process, it occurs in an environment that is quite unlike a laboratory, resulting in contamination.
As for electrolytes, usually you need to intake specific foods or liquids that are high in electrolytes (electrolytes are just chemicals that increase electrical conductivity of a solution when dissolved). So while a litre of tap water has more electrolytes than a litre of distilled water, a litre of fruit juice has more (though drinking a litre of fruit juice probably isn't great for you).
As for whether lack of electrolytes is harmful, the answer is yes. Electrolytes are required for your body's electro-chemistry to operate properly and maintain the proper function of your heart, brain, body's fluid-balance, and pH buffer system. When you lose electrolytes (such as through heavy sweating, diarrhea or vomiting) those processes may not work as well.
I would note that when you are dehydrated, hospitals will generally provide you with liquid electrolytes (intravenously if the situation is dire), implying that there is some medical benefit of liquid sources over solid ones (but I might be mistaken). But there are several solid sources of electrolytes.
>...lack of electrolytes is harmful, the answer is yes
How much distilled water does it take to cause "harm"?
Since "normal" water can cause loss of electrolytes also, what is the actual difference between the two? (is there any actual data? or do we have to guess?)
A commenter further down says distilled water causes stomach cells to explode and diarrhoea. But since I just found out today that the entire Navy provides only distilled water to it's sailors. (think 3 months under the sea in a submarine with only distilled water) I am really starting to think that the idea that distilled water was ever bad for anyone is a myth.
> How much distilled water does it take to cause "harm"?
Read the quote again. I said lack of electrolytes is harmful, because that's what you asked. I don't believe that distilled water is harmful by itself (though if you take it and you don't know that you need to take in minerals from other sources then it could be harmful purely through negligence). I'm just trying to answer your question.
> But since I just found out today that the entire Navy provides only distilled water to it's sailors. (think 3 months under the sea in a submarine with only distilled water)
But sailors are also given vitamin supplements (to prevent scurvy and a variety of other diseases). I'd be surprised if they aren't also given some form of mineral and electrolyte supplements, to combat those problems. I don't know why they'd provide them distilled water though.
> A commenter further down says distilled water causes stomach cells to explode and diarrhoea.
I'm in agreement with you that this comment doesn't make any sense.
I know that is what you said, but we are talking in circles.
Why do you think distilled water robs you of _enough_ electrolytes to cause harm? There must be some real data or proof somewhere?
I've read a lot of comments here claiming this, but not a single source is quoted anywhere. Don't you think it's odd that many believe something, yet it's so hard to find proof of it?
According to this medical doctor distilled water is considered helpful against cancer, specifically stating no added minerals, vitamins or electrolytes. Interview from Rising (web mag?) with Dr. Jason Fung (JF).
>JF ‘When the body senses the temporary absence of nutrients, it must prioritise which cellular parts to keep. The oldest and most worn-out cells get discarded, and amino acids from the broken-down cell parts are delivered to the liver, which uses them to create glucose during gluconeogenesis – a natural process in the body that helps to maintain stable blood sugar levels. Cancer may be a result of what’s called ‘disordered autophagy’. We’re learning that this process plays a role in cancer biology, and products that inhibit this process have been approved by the Food & Drug Administration in the US for the treatment of cancers. Fasting’s role in stimulating autophagy provides an opportunity to prevent cancer. And that’s why Dr Seyfried proposes a yearly seven-day water-only fast.’
RISING Seven days with no food, just water?
JF ‘Distilled water, to be precise. No additives, no vitamins, no minerals. Distilled water and nothing else.’
Calcium isn't going to magically go into your distilled water and "remineralize" it - because most minerals aren't air gases. Distilled water pulls minerals from cells and causes apoptosis. Its just simple science of osmosis. Its not a big deal if you arent fasting, because most people get their minerals from solid food anyways.
Not, is for osmotic pressure. Cells are burst by that water. Is a simplification, but is a "mechanical damage"
Any strong acid able to "dissolve tissues" will kill cells of course (causing apoptosis), but is not the only way. Distilled water is not so acid.
Your questions are too over-specialized, too vague or too complex to be answered in a few lines. I can understand the lack of motivation and answers. How much electrolytes are there in a single "bite" of "any particular food"... is an example of question impossible to answer. A mouthful is a variable and undefined amount of matter, and "any particular food" has an almost infinite range.
> this seems to only happen when the cells are actually removed
Not, this is false. All alive tissues are subject to osmotic regulation. Is a basic mechanism to protect the cell integrity.
> drinking distilled water causes blood cells to burst in our veins?
Not in your veins, in your gut. Is well known that drinking big amounts of distilled water causes diarrhea. A glass of water will not have much effect on you. All depends on the dose. (Injecting distilled water directly in your veins could cause blood cells to burst, on the other hand).
>All alive tissues are subject to osmotic regulation. Is a basic mechanism to protect the cell integrity.
>Not in your veins, in your gut.
>...drinking big amounts of distilled water causes diarrhea.
Stating that distilled water caused cells to explode in your stomach and give you diarrhoea are some extraordinary claims that I have never come across before, and I think they require some sources to back up.
Edit: Some googling and I am mostly finding support for distilled water, and nothing as dramatic as what you are claiming about exploding cells in your stomach.
Even the doctors that seem to oppose distilled water support its use for detoxing. I think the idea of distilled water being bad is an old myth that is still hanging around.
Edit2: I just found out that all the navy ships and submarines provide distilled water as the only drinking source for their sailors. Considering that they are at sea for months at a time, I think this completely debunks the myth that distilled water "explodes cells" and causes diarrhoea.
Is not my duty to compile and spoon-feed for you a list of curated texts on basic biology. You can easily obtain this list of sources with a little effort by your part. Just type "biology handbook" in google and you will have more than you need to satisfy your curiosity.
I will entertain this thread with one more comment. Can you provide just one source that says distilled water explodes stomach cells and causes diarrhoea?
This isnt a debate for someone who doesn't even know basic biology. Half your requests asking for specific details show that you are unable to even string two facts together to learn a consequence. No one is going to give you the minutia you are looking for - asking "how does that work?" in a nested fashion is what kids do...and its a never ending game that adults try not to play.
Distilled water is both acidic and osmotically poor due to its low levels of dissolved solids. Like was mentioned 10 comments ago, drinking distilled water will sap your body of electrolytes and other minerals. This can include bone loss due to resorption. However it isn't the worst thing if you consume a good diet of solid food containing minerals - which most people do.
But you decided to consume distilled water...on a fast...without taking vitamins or minerals. It takes a real philistine to believe in the benefits of something that is actually killing them - because they read it from some dieting blog. Googling distilled water comes up with many medical and health journal papers. But we dont even need that because basic cell membrane physiology which is a standard pre-med class, deals with all this stuff. I wont continue the debate.
This is just an internet forum, and I did google distilled water, and I found an interview with a doctor saying he recommends distilled water, with no added minerals or electrolytes is good to help fight cancer.
I am curious is there is even a single source on the internet with real data on any negative effects of distilled water, cause I have only seen comments on forums, but no proof.
Are you aware most treatments for cancer are poisons? At least the amateur blog you linked gets that right...There is no proof toxins will get removed, just proof of the opposite; that your body will start to destroy itself in order to survive. Shooting yourself in the head is also a great cancer cure.
In summary, you buy into the "pain must be good!" ascetic BS. You have insecurity and by fasting, you believe you must be rewarded for your sacrifice. Well, it sucks that you actually get more pain for your pain - break down your body, lose muscle, produce ammonia, urea, and all sorts of toxins, pull out stored toxins and use them because your body is so desperate on its low reserves of vital nutrients..and destroy your organs. Bravo!
Please dont dig this distilled watering hole any deeper.
I read the link you posted [0] and it did not say distilled water is bad for you. I don't disagree with the statement "extreme fasting can be dangerous".
>You have insecurity...
Why are you making this personal?
>break down your body, lose muscle, produce ammonia, urea, and all sorts of toxins, pull out stored toxins and use them because your body is so desperate on its low reserves of vital nutrients..and destroy your organs. Bravo!
According to this video _none_ of that happens. He addresses all of those claims. (provides proof from actual medical studies)
The medical studies he presents (not his own) state the opposite of what you are saying. If you don't want to watch the video, I think this article is similar:
When is this stupid myth finally going to die off? Our body is horrible at processing compounds that are not bound organically, so any pure mineral you take up just taxes your internal filtartion. Your body will gladly take minerals and vitamins when it is organically bound (e.g. in a fruit or vegetable). Eat some of those and you'll be fine.
This is not just theoretical, we own a reverse-osmosis filrtation system that produces water that is very clean (around 1 ppm - compared to hundreds in regular tap water, probably even cleaner than distilled water) and I'm an avid water drinker (3-5 l/day) since a few years. I don't eat food suplements either, but try to get some reasonable amount of vegetables in my diet and a salad now and then. I'm feeling fine.. so much for minerals and ions - bah.
This patient's initial weight was 207 kilograms, and over the course of a year he lost 125 kilograms. During this time he only consumed water, yeast, and multivitamins. After ending the fast, he successfully kept the weight off and only regained 7 kilograms over the next 5 years. He received a Guinness World Record for the longest recorded fast.
While a successful example of weight loss, the paper does cite five reports of fatalities occurring during total starvation weight loss treatment. It is probably not the safest way to lose weight.
Research I did years ago said that when fasting the body starts dumping a lot of toxins. Fasting specialists monitor the urine from a patient and can determine if the fast needs to be slowed or stopped to let the patient recover before fasting again. The source was from a book written by Paul Bragg.
Actually, when fasting, the body holds on to a lot more toxins because it is low on vital resources and the kidneys and liver begin to release hormones to retain minerals and nutrients instead of urinating them out. This is why fasting often results in both kidney and liver damage along with enzyme increases.
You posted this same link in another comment. This article does not say distilled water is bad, and only demonstrates that extreme fasting is dangerous, which I agree with.
It is amazing that we have so good knowledge over what the body needs that one can live on just water, yeast and multivitamins for a year. But why the yeast?
The paper does not say, however I did find a source speculating why:
The reason doctors administered yeast is simple – it was his only source of protein, and without it, the body starts eating its own muscle tissue. Without any form of protein at all, the man would not be able to "direct" his body to consume his vast amounts of body fat as fuel, and would die within weeks.
Just two tablespoons of nutritional yeast[1] provides a person with 60 calories, 5 grams of carbohydrates and 9 grams of protein – including all nine amino acids, which the human body cannot produce on its own.
Seems like nutritional yeast is a convenient source for essential amino acids.
It wouldn't have been live yeast - probably powdered brewer's yeast. Rich in B vitamins, trace minerals, protein, dietary fiber. I'm guessing it's to 'fill in the gaps' in the multivitamin regime, which can't be assumed to be complete.
Last summer I fasted (intermittent) for 30 days. I had intended to do a pure fast (water only), but circumstances lead me to 1 meal a day.
I gained strength the longer I was in the fast. My running distance increased, and I lost on average .5 lbs a day. I weighed myself 4 times and day, logged all my meals and activity. I felt great. I gained back about 5 lbs on average, but this fluctuates some. (as is expected)
The key thing I learned from this, to maintain my weight loss, is to appreciate being hungry. It makes your next meal taste better, you have signal process to let you know you are burning fat, and it makes your stomach consistently smaller so you fill up easier. All wins...
What was your starting BMI? What was your finishing BMI? Did you experience any of the symptoms the guy in the case report got (stomach cramps, blackouts when standing up, belching, etc.)?
I am pretty healthy to start with (this guy seemed to have quite a few issues implied by his weight history). I didn't measure BMI beyond pinching my belly.
I had no negative symptoms at all. I suspect partly because it wasn't a long term complete fast, and also, I've fasted my entire life at least once a year, so I know what to expect. I stay well hydrated, and get plenty of sleep.
Sorry for the lack of BMI info, but my pants getting loose was my measure for that. :)
Edit: With what I know now, if I had negative symptoms, I'd start with multiple shorter fasts until I could handle longer ones. The minimum would be 24 hours.
It sounds like you kept track of your starting weight and ending weight. If you know your starting and ending height or can safely assume your starting and ending height are very close to your current height, you can calculate change in BMI. There's no need for a skin caliper measurement, as you seem to be implying.
I will have to look up BMI calcuations at some point (currently working), and add this data to my spreadsheet. Thanks, I didn't know this was possible.
BMI is body mass in kg divided by the square of height in meters. The typically cited normal range is 18.5 kg/m^2 to 25 kg/m^2.
Technically, you can use whatever units you want, but almost every chart uses units of kg/m^2, and if the units aren't explicit, they're quite probably using kg/m^2.
A very lean bodybuilder could still have a high BMI.
I don't have a reference offhand, but the US Army has a lot of data on military-service-aged men and their cardiovascular health risks. They found BMI isn't a great predictor of cardiovascular health. Some formula involving height and the circumference of the belly was a much better predictor of cardiovascular risks.
A thin but tall westerner colleague in Japan told me that doctors in Japan are required to counsel anyone with a waist circumference over a certain limit about weight loss. There's no correction for height (or race), only sex. His doctor realized that my colleague isn't overweight, but still had to lecture him. BMI at least accounts for height, but can be similarly misleading.
That's the odd part, one day I ate 6 cupcakes with my dinner, just to test my theories about weight loss. I still lost my average .5 lbs over the next couple days.
But one day, I simply ate too much "regular" food at dinner, and I gained weight instead of losing it. (about 2.5 weeks in)
I didn't count calories at all, I found that discouraging in the past. I went by how I felt completely, and by forcing myself to take less than I wanted (ie, opposite of "eyes are bigger than my stomach") I was still satisfied. It was a fight with how I felt about eating before I started, versus how I felt after eating.
I learned from helping run a kids summer camp, that one counsellor would give the hungry boys 1 taco to start with. Which I thought was odd, and then they could come back and get seconds, etc... He explained that the reason was that if the boys got to take as much as they wanted, they'd take like 4 at first, and eat them all. But if they took 1, and had to wait for a few minutes before the next, they'd only eat 2.
I use this knowledge on myself to this day. I eat a little, wait, and then my appetite is dramatically reduced, and I eat less. I don't do this all the time, but I am conscience of the effect when I need it.
> Clear ethical barriers preclude structured research into the physiology of such stimuli.
I wonder why that is. The key point is "voluntary" starvation, read fasting. Why not make a study with consenting participants to fast for a specific time? Which "clear ethical barrier" is broken here?
The existence of the study may entice participants to fast for a long period in exchange for attention or (relative) fame, while they wouldn’t have done so without it.
It also may put pressure on them to continue where they normally would have stopped because they feel pressure because “those scientists invested so much time in it”.
And of course, they may suffer long term health effects, even if they fast for a period that typically doesn’t have any on subjects.
You can see these kinds of ethical issues clearer by exaggerating. Replace “fasting” by “being hit in the face”, for example. What’s wrong with looking for volunteers who want to be hit in the face every hour for weeks?
I have done lots of alternative stuff to deal with a serious medical condition. I have done so very successfully. I also did it without external pressure to stay a particular course, etc.
People when watched behave different. People under contract behave different.
It is one thing to take notes when someone does this voluntarily. It is quite another to put people under contract for something like this.
Fair point. I thought more on the lines of "we search people who want to fast. We will provide medical supervision and a controlled environment where you can do that, while we take notes. If you want to quit, you can at any time." (I assume with contract you mean something like "you have to fast for x days, if not you are in breach of contract" - is that correct?)
I just mean a contract agreeing to a study at all. "What gets measured gets done." Etc.
I am under the close supervision of my 30 old son and have been since he was 13. It's a completely different dynamic than reporting results to a doctor or lab for a study.
I believe that the ethics board will not allow voluntary harm, if as a scientist you believe that the procedure is harmful (beyond done reasonable threshold, as everything is harmful in large doses...)
This is an interesting point, why do you suppose fasting is considered harmful by anyone? I feel there may be some historical propaganda against it at play here.
> ... why do you suppose fasting is considered harmful by anyone?
As noted by another poster, extreme fasting is sometimes fatal.[0] I've also heard elsewhere that it can be fatal and a physician should be consulted before fasting more than a couple of days.
I am aware that extreme fasting is dangerous, but so is extreme water drinking.[0] But fasting in general seems to be stigmatised.
Dr. Jason Fung [1] has some fascinating videos on Youtube about why fasting isn't bad. I am just curious why there's a mainstream view that it's bad and the exception is that it's good, vs the other way around?
I think it's probably a combination of the knowledge that extreme fasting is dangerous and the myth that your metabolism plummets as soon as you skip a meal.
When I was in middle school, I remember my friend's older sister being on some kind of snack diet that was supposed to keep metabolism high by never going more than an hour or so without food when not sleeping.
I seem to remember Brad Pilon in "Eat Stop Eat" briefly mentioning the origin of the myth that your metabolism tanks rapidly if you skip a meal, but I could be wrong.
I do intermittent fasting myself, and it drives me a little crazy when my wife tries to convince me that it's bad for my health to skip dinner once in a while on one of my non-fast days.
It's unethical to study extreme fasting as you have to ask someone to put themselves into a dangerous situation. Someone doing so voluntarily (against advise) and being monitored is fine.
I started eating once a day about 2 months ago. Lost about 20kg. After a while you just stop getting as hungry as you usually would. Sometimes when I'm busy I actually forget to eat.
As somebody who is not familiar with medical research, can anyone tell me why the authors mention the BMI here at all? As far as I understand, the BMI is an indispensable metric for statistics on large populations. However, in a case study involving only a single individual, it seems to me that other markers such as body fat percentage for example, would be a better choice making the BMI more or less meaningless.
It still doesn't explain to me why the authors still mention the BMI. It seems like a meaningless piece of information given that they have much better markers.
Of related interested, and possibly the only paper that has reached the NEJM with a magician as an author, is this paper that describes David Blane's physiology having spent 44 days fasting in a box: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM200511243532124
I don't see that as an error. Although there's a popular simplified model that expresses an ideal weight as a function of kg/m^2, the weight/height ratio is indeed expressed as kg/m.
Furthermore, if that detail was relevant I'm sure that the paper wouldn't have passed through a peer review process.
If the authors were using kg/m^-1 instead of kg/m^-2 with the given information (96.8 kg; BMI, 30.2 kg m−1; height not provided), the patient would need to be over 3m (nearly 10 ft) tall. This seems unlikely. If it were true, it would probably make for an even more interesting case report.
> Although there's a popular simplified model that expresses an ideal weight as a function of kg/m^2, the weight/height ratio is indeed expressed as kg/m.
That's a non-sequitur argument: the OP wasn't talking about height/mass ratio. BMI is clearly defined and it is not weight/height ratio.[0] You might as well have said "I think the units for BMI are indeed kg/m, because Abraham Lincoln was born in 1809".
I had prior experience doing such a diet once before (for 21 days a year earlier) knowing 8 weeks could be realistic for me to maintain at the time. I stopped a week early because even I boiled the tap water, the residual chlorine left over wasn't properly broken down by my body (food helps with that normally) and caused strong reactions every time I tried to drink (nausea even vomiting in final week). So not being able to hydrate myself I needed to stop very abruptly.
After I reintroduced my body to food I ended up in hospital a week later due to kidney stones (presumably a side effect of the starvation diet and flushing them out)
The hunger goes away after the 3rd/4th day and I was even able to go for a small run every other day until week 5. My motivation for it was neither religious nor to loose weight (although I had 10kg too much compared to my ideal shape 5 years before). People thought I was crazy for doing it (and I didn't tell anyone about it while it happened and also refused to discuss it with my doctor). I wanted to see how my body (and mind) reacts to extreme pressure like that. Also I felt experienced enough at the time to do this I would not recommend pushing too far into the extreme especially if it's your first time. Also worth noting that my weight never bounced back and I managed to maintain my ideal even after 5 years later (only gained 5kg mostly bodymass I lost not so much the fat).
My mental abilities (creativity, concentration, focus) were incredible especially until week 5. What I learned is as the body prepares for starvation it also releases huge amounts of energy that is stored up. Feels like having super powers. The body makes these reserves available so we can give it a final push for hunting or finding food (when homo sapiens is out in nature trying to survive I guess). It's probably why fasting is such a big thing in every religion.