"Roger Lepine" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:Dear experts,
Here's an interesting question for you.
Given: a standard 2000 calorie diet.
Activity: normal office activity, no exercise
Weight: 200 pounds, male.
If a person fasts for, 32-36 hours, say from
Thursday night, until Saturday morning,
Mostly water loss, instantly gained back on such a short
fast...and the induction of food cravings that are not
practically controllable..so a net weight gain.
I have fasted extensively..to vast benefit however... you
need to read a few books on fasting, particularly raw
vegitable juice augmented fasting, You can loose weight
fasting but the thats not a good use of fasting you will loose
both lean muscle and fat while fasting...
its very good for your health if done properly, fatal if not
done properly especially broken properly after more than 3
days on say water for instance (I did 30 days on water alone
one time..not recommended, but useful for some things)
(Hunger btw totally abates after 5 or 7 days on water). Again
I DO NOT recommend water fasting. Raw juice fasting is
vastly better across the broad range of issues)
Quoted message said:
What can the expected weight loss be for the this
time period?
Perhaps 10 glasses of water drunk through this
time period.
Get a few books on fasting. You need plenty of water while
fasting to remove wastes.
Quoted message said:Remembering my high school science, there is
the law of conservation of mass.
not applicable to fasting.
Quoted message said:
Applied to eating, this means, that to gain
10 pounds, you must consume at least 10
pounds of food and water. Obviously, a lot
more than 10 pounds, because so much of the
food and water is converted to energy, waste,
and evaporated through the skin.
With this physics, you cannot eat a few ounzes,
and gain a few pounds.
Assume all other things being equal.
I know that diet has become a religious war
item these days, and I'm not interested in such.
Please don't bother speculating about long
term averages, about eating more when you break
the fast, etc. Or about exercise, red herrings,
or other variables that are not in the question.
All those are integral parts your question... none of these
issues operate in isolation.
Your attempt to isolate the fasting from other factors such as
metablism simply doesnt apply... there is always metabolism
and the amount of excercise you do, walking, even thinking
etc..bears directly on the answers you seek.
Ok lets try to oblige you... you are going to fast say
strapped to a bed so you cant move a muscle, and drink 10
glasses of water over 36 hours or so.. what will the loss
be.... answer. virtually zero since you have burned very
little fat off.. assuming you were not thinking much either...
to get a firm figure you would measure the heat loss from your
body (there are formula's related to how cool the room is
etc)...how much heat is lost in respiration...and in the
excement..and you could get a close figure... Id say maybe the
equivalent of 4 oz of fat... except as you were not moving,
muscle would have been used for fuel too...so maybe 2 oz of
fat and 2 oz of muscle.
I broke a leg motorcycle racing at the Placer County Fair
grounds in 1980 one time...the leg was in a cast for 6 weeks.
It shunk drastically, I was lean and mean then, all muscle...
I lost Id day at least half the muscle in that leg in just 6
weeks due to the immobilization.
So you see, excercise is a crucial aspect ...further more the
loss of muscle then reduces the capacity of your calorie
burning machine...so that when you go back on regular eating,
the same amount of food then creates fat instead of being
burned... so you see...its all relevant after all.
Best you should read some books on the subject... asking for
short isolated snippets from the NG will not suffice,
especially if you anounce in advance that you are not
interested in the linked, and absolutely vital collateral
issues.
Quoted message said:
Please also don't bother talking about
whether this is adviseable or not.
a 36 hour fast is almost not even a fast at all in fasting
circles...I call it a fast though... but you really dont see
much immediate and lasing benefit until 3 days, thats 72
hours. ..and that needs in my experience to be repeated for 6
months or more to reverse a condition noticeably Recent
research however shows that fsating one day a week improves
longevity by 30% or so...so there is a long term benefit.
Quoted message said:
Just the answer please.
An 'answer' out of context with its vitally related issues
is not really meaningful...it might be an answer, but out of
context, that answer is largely or entirely meaningless.
Quoted message said:
Hopefully based on some kind of science or
experience, not speculation.
My answers were based on 30 years experience, fasting,
supervising fasts in others, and reading many books on fasting
and a few hundred collateral and other health issues... but
the fact is, until man has reached an all knowing pinacle (and
currently we have just the barest clues) everything discussed
contains countless seeds of assumption and speculation.
Your best bet is to educate yourself...and thats done by
your own reading, and personal trials ...and asking questions,
but only as the lesser feature.
Phil Scott
Quoted message said:Thanks a lot
