Fasting on Yom Kippur

[Dan]

For my whole life people have been telling me confidently
that fasting on the Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur (when no
food OR water is consumed for appx 24 hours) is healthy! They
vaguely refer to a beneficial "cleansing" and "giving your
stomach a "rest".

It seems to me that this type of fasting (especially with NO
water) would be decidedly UNhealthy.

What is the current medical view on this subject?

Thanks!

Dan

[Eric Bohlm]

dan@camelot.mssm.edu (Dan) wrote in
news:82e8df8a.0310062003.4daf57ae@posting.google.com:

> For my whole life people have been telling me confidently
> that fasting on the Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur (when no
> food OR water is consumed for appx 24 hours) is healthy!
> They vaguely refer to a beneficial "cleansing" and "giving
> your stomach a "rest".
>
> It seems to me that this type of fasting (especially with NO
> water) would be decidedly UNhealthy.
>
> What is the current medical view on this subject?

That in healthy people, doing it for only one day is neither
medically harmful nor medically beneficial. Those vague
benefits you talk about are basically spiritual, not
physiological (of course, if one routinely overeats to the
point of feeling bloated and sluggish, there will be
physiological reasons behind a feeling of increased
well-being from not doing it for a day. These are similar to
the physiological benefits that someone who routinely hits
himself on the head with a hammer would experience if he took
a break from it).

Don't confuse "cleansing" used in a spiritual sense with
pop-med notions of "detoxification."

There's some evidence that fasting may have a short-term
euphoriant effect, which apparently becomes quite a problem in
people with eating disorders. But that's hardly a major
problem with a one-day fast.

[Dan]

Thanks Eric!

I just found this page: http://www.ivillage.com/food/experts/-
nutrition/qas/0,,242253_4387,00.html?arrivalSA=1&arrival_freq-
Cap=1&pba=adid=6265659

What do you think? I think she is talking about the
consequences of a longer fast... but I'm not sure....

Dan

Eric Bohlman <ebohlman@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<Xns940D3654560F6ebohlmanomsdevcom@130.133.1.4>...
> dan@camelot.mssm.edu (Dan) wrote in
> news:82e8df8a.0310062003.4daf57ae@posting.google.com:
>
> > For my whole life people have been telling me confidently
> > that fasting on the Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur (when no
> > food OR water is consumed for appx 24 hours) is healthy!
> > They vaguely refer to a beneficial "cleansing" and "giving
> > your stomach a "rest".
> >
> > It seems to me that this type of fasting (especially with
> > NO water) would be decidedly UNhealthy.
> >
> > What is the current medical view on this subject?
>
> That in healthy people, doing it for only one day is neither
> medically harmful nor medically beneficial. Those vague
> benefits you talk about are basically spiritual, not
> physiological (of course, if one routinely overeats to the
> point of feeling bloated and sluggish, there will be
> physiological reasons behind a feeling of increased
> well-being from not doing it for a day. These are similar to
> the physiological benefits that someone who routinely hits
> himself on the head with a hammer would experience if he
> took a break from it).
>
> Don't confuse "cleansing" used in a spiritual sense with
> pop-med notions of "detoxification."
>
> There's some evidence that fasting may have a short-term
> euphoriant effect, which apparently becomes quite a problem
> in people with eating disorders. But that's hardly a major
> problem with a one-day fast.

[Jeff]

"Dan" <dan@camelot.mssm.edu> wrote in message
news:82e8df8a.0310070556.2335386b@posting.google.com...
> Thanks Eric!
>
> I just found this page:
>
http://www.ivillage.com/food/experts/nutrition/qas/0,,242253_-
4387,00.html?arrivalSA=1&arrival_freqCap=1&pba=adid=6265659
>
> What do you think? I think she is talking about the
> consequences of a longer fast... but I'm not sure....

She doesn't know what she is talking about. But she is talking
about fasting for several days, not one. People get
gastrointestinal diseases (vomiting + Diarrhea) that last a
few days, then start eating again. As long as they drink,
there is no harm done.

So I beleive that fasting for 24 hours won't hurt a bit.

Jeff

> Dan
>
>
> Eric Bohlman <ebohlman@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<Xns940D3654560F6ebohlmanomsdevcom@130.133.1.4>...
> > dan@camelot.mssm.edu (Dan) wrote in
> > news:82e8df8a.0310062003.4daf57ae@posting.google.com:
> >
> > > For my whole life people have been telling me
> > > confidently that fasting on the Jewish holiday of Yom
> > > Kippur (when no food OR water is consumed for appx 24
> > > hours) is healthy! They vaguely refer to a beneficial
> > > "cleansing" and "giving your stomach a "rest".
> > >
> > > It seems to me that this type of fasting (especially
> > > with NO water) would be decidedly UNhealthy.
> > >
> > > What is the current medical view on this subject?
> >
> > That in healthy people, doing it for only one day is
> > neither medically harmful nor medically beneficial. Those
> > vague benefits you talk about
are
> > basically spiritual, not physiological (of course, if one
> > routinely overeats to the point of feeling bloated and
> > sluggish, there will be physiological reasons behind a
> > feeling of increased well-being from not doing it for a
> > day. These are similar to the physiological benefits
that
> > someone who routinely hits himself on the head with a
> > hammer would experience if he took a break from it).
> >
> > Don't confuse "cleansing" used in a spiritual sense with
> > pop-med notions
of
> > "detoxification."
> >
> > There's some evidence that fasting may have a short-term
> > euphoriant
effect,
> > which apparently becomes quite a problem in people with
> > eating
disorders.
> > But that's hardly a major problem with a one-day fast.

[Dan]

Jeff,

Thanks for your response... but my friend's assertion was not
only that fasting is not unhealthy... but actually has some
health benefits! What do you think?

Dan

PS Why don't you think the woman knows what she's
talking about?

"Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<blvgoo$cdu@library2.airnews.net>...
> "Dan" <dan@camelot.mssm.edu> wrote in message
> news:82e8df8a.0310070556.2335386b@posting.google.com...
> > Thanks Eric!
> >
> > I just found this page:
> >
> http://www.ivillage.com/food/experts/nutrition/qas/0,,24-
> 2253_4387,00.html?arrivalSA=1&arrival_freqCap=1&pba=adid-
> =6265659
> >
> > What do you think? I think she is talking about the
> > consequences of a longer fast... but I'm not sure....
>
> She doesn't know what she is talking about. But she is
> talking about fasting for several days, not one. People get
> gastrointestinal diseases (vomiting + Diarrhea) that last a
> few days, then start eating again. As long as they drink,
> there is no harm done.
>
> So I beleive that fasting for 24 hours won't hurt a bit.
>
> Jeff
>
> > Dan
> >
> >
> > Eric Bohlman <ebohlman@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:<Xns940D3654560F6ebohlmanomsdevcom@130.133.1.4>...
> > > dan@camelot.mssm.edu (Dan) wrote in
> > > news:82e8df8a.0310062003.4daf57ae@posting.google.com:
> > >
> > > > For my whole life people have been telling me
> > > > confidently that fasting on the Jewish holiday of Yom
> > > > Kippur (when no food OR water is consumed for appx 24
> > > > hours) is healthy! They vaguely refer to a beneficial
> > > > "cleansing" and "giving your stomach a "rest".
> > > >
> > > > It seems to me that this type of fasting (especially
> > > > with NO water) would be decidedly UNhealthy.
> > > >
> > > > What is the current medical view on this subject?
> > >
> > > That in healthy people, doing it for only one day is
> > > neither medically harmful nor medically beneficial.
> > > Those vague benefits you talk about
> are
> > > basically spiritual, not physiological (of course, if
> > > one routinely overeats to the point of feeling bloated
> > > and sluggish, there will be physiological reasons behind
> > > a feeling of increased well-being from not doing it for
> > > a day. These are similar to the physiological benefits
> that
> > > someone who routinely hits himself on the head with a
> > > hammer would experience if he took a break from it).
> > >
> > > Don't confuse "cleansing" used in a spiritual sense with
> > > pop-med notions
> of
> > > "detoxification."
> > >
> > > There's some evidence that fasting may have a short-term
> > > euphoriant
> effect,
> > > which apparently becomes quite a problem in people with
> > > eating
> disorders.
> > > But that's hardly a major problem with a one-day fast.

[Jeff]

"Dan" <dan@camelot.mssm.edu> wrote in message
news:82e8df8a.0310081002.57e9a024@posting.google.com...
> Jeff,
>
> Thanks for your response... but my friend's assertion was
> not only that fasting is not unhealthy... but actually has
> some health benefits! What do you think?

I don't think fasting has any health benefits. It can disturb
bowel function (nothing to poop out, but bowel function
usually is not badly disturbed, so you miss a poop) and can
cause blood sugar to go down (esp. for people with diabetes on
meds). I don't think the risks are that great, though.

I don't think fasting is good for you. There are better ways
to lose weight. And it does not cleanse the body of anything.
So I don't see any health benefits.

Jeff

> Dan
>
> PS Why don't you think the woman knows what she's talking
> about?
>
>
> "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<blvgoo$cdu@library2.airnews.net>...
> > "Dan" <dan@camelot.mssm.edu> wrote in message
> > news:82e8df8a.0310070556.2335386b@posting.google.com...
> > > Thanks Eric!
> > >
> > > I just found this page:
> > >
> >
http://www.ivillage.com/food/experts/nutrition/qas/0,,242253_-
4387,00.html?arrivalSA=1&arrival_freqCap=1&pba=adid=6265659
> > >
> > > What do you think? I think she is talking about the
> > > consequences of a longer fast... but I'm not sure....
> >
> > She doesn't know what she is talking about. But she is
> > talking about
fasting
> > for several days, not one. People get gastrointestinal
> > diseases
(vomiting +
> > Diarrhea) that last a few days, then start eating again.
> > As long as they drink, there is no harm done.
> >
> > So I beleive that fasting for 24 hours won't hurt a bit.
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> > > Dan
> > >
> > >
> > > Eric Bohlman <ebohlman@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:<Xns940D3654560F6ebohlmanomsdevcom@130.133.1.4>...
> > > > dan@camelot.mssm.edu (Dan) wrote in
> > > > news:82e8df8a.0310062003.4daf57ae@posting.google.com:
> > > >
> > > > > For my whole life people have been telling me
> > > > > confidently that
fasting
> > > > > on the Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur (when no food OR
> > > > > water is
consumed
> > > > > for appx 24 hours) is healthy! They vaguely refer to
> > > > > a beneficial "cleansing" and "giving your stomach a
> > > > > "rest".
> > > > >
> > > > > It seems to me that this type of fasting (especially
> > > > > with NO
water)
> > > > > would be decidedly UNhealthy.
> > > > >
> > > > > What is the current medical view on this subject?
> > > >
> > > > That in healthy people, doing it for only one day is
> > > > neither
medically
> > > > harmful nor medically beneficial. Those vague benefits
> > > > you talk
about
> > are
> > > > basically spiritual, not physiological (of course, if
> > > > one routinely overeats to the point of feeling bloated
> > > > and sluggish, there will be physiological reasons
> > > > behind a feeling of increased well-being from
not
> > > > doing it for a day. These are similar to the
> > > > physiological benefits
> > that
> > > > someone who routinely hits himself on the head with a
> > > > hammer would experience if he took a break from it).
> > > >
> > > > Don't confuse "cleansing" used in a spiritual sense
> > > > with pop-med
notions
> > of
> > > > "detoxification."
> > > >
> > > > There's some evidence that fasting may have a
> > > > short-term euphoriant
> > effect,
> > > > which apparently becomes quite a problem in people
> > > > with eating
> > disorders.
> > > > But that's hardly a major problem with a one-day fast.

[Tim Tyler]

Jeff <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote or quoted:

> I don't think fasting has any health benefits. It can
> disturb bowel function (nothing to poop out, but bowel
> function usually is not badly disturbed, so you miss a
> poop) and can cause blood sugar to go down (esp. for people
> with diabetes on meds). I don't think the risks are that
> great, though.
>
> I don't think fasting is good for you. There are better ways
> to lose weight. And it does not cleanse the body of
> anything. So I don't see any health benefits.

Fasting on alternate days is effective at prolonging life -
since it results in calorie restriction.

``Effects of intermittent feeding upon growth and life span
in rats.''

The mean life span of the EOD group represented an 83%
increase over that of the AL group.''

- http://timtyler.org/pmid/?n=7117847

There are many other studies along similar lines.

The evidence is overwhelming - regular fasting reduces
mortality, and prolongs life - probably by causing an overall
reduction in calorie intake.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1lock.org Remove
lock to reply.

[John 'The]

Once upon a time, our fellow Tim Tyler rambled on about "Re:
Fasting on Yom Kippur." Our champion De-Medicalizing in
sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

>Fasting on alternate days is effective at prolonging life -
>since it results in calorie restriction.
>
>``Effects of intermittent feeding upon growth and life span
>in rats.''

Humans are not rats! Just thought that you might want to know.
:)

"Malnourished and starving people are not good candidates for
spontaneous healing. ... More common reasons for insufficient
metabolic energy are inadequate diets, impaired digestions,
and improper breathinga, all of which are within your
control." -- Andrew Weil, MD in _Spontaneous Healing_

I agree with Dr. Weil on this issue. CR activities depress the
immune system of the human body. Skinny people are in a very
bad position when it comes to surviving chemotherapy or any
major illness.

Educate yourself on the facts, Tyler. Search in medline under
wasting disease, muscle wasting, loss of lean body mass or
sarcopenia, anorexia, and cancer cachexia.

The pictures of people practicing CR are nothing but pictures
of walking skeletons!!!
--
John Gohde, Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!

Get started on improving your personal health and
fitness, today.
http://www.Tutorials.NaturalHealthPerspective.com/
Offering easy to understand lessons that will change
your life.

[Richard Sc]

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 14:17:57 GMT, John 'the Man'
<DeMan@fruitloop.com> wrote:

>Once upon a time, our fellow Tim Tyler rambled on about "Re:
>Fasting on Yom Kippur." Our champion De-Medicalizing in
>sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

First of all, Mr. Gohde. You're overdue for a lesson in
personal courtesy and respect. You're also overdue for a
lesson in Usenet courtesy. Five crossposts are excessive,
especially given your high ratio of invective and vain
boasting to actual scientific content.

>>Fasting on alternate days is effective at prolonging life -
>>since it results in calorie restriction.
>>
>>``Effects of intermittent feeding upon growth and life span
>>in rats.''

Gohde:
>Humans are not rats! Just thought that you might want
>to know. :)

Your own behavior refutes your argument and fosters a bull
market for the studies of ethologists.

>"Malnourished and starving people are not good candidates for
>spontaneous healing. ... More common reasons for insufficient
>metabolic energy are inadequate diets, impaired digestions,
>and improper breathinga, all of which are within your
>control." -- Andrew Weil, MD in _Spontaneous Healing_

>I agree with Dr. Weil on this issue. CR activities depress
>the immune system of the human body.

CR practitioners are not malnourished.

>Skinny people are in a very bad position when it comes to
>surviving chemotherapy or any major illness.

The medical evidence strongly indicates that skinny people are
much less likely than fat people to contract cancer in the
first place.

>Educate yourself on the facts, Tyler.

More rudeness and projection of your own deficits, Mr. Gohde.

[Followup set to alt.duck.quack.quack.quack.]
---
Richard Schulman Remove antispamming "-xyz" for email reply

[John 'The]

Once upon a time, our fellow Richard Schulman rambled on about
"Re: Fasting on Yom Kippur." Our champion De-Medicalizing in
sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

>CR practitioners are not malnourished.

Yeah, ... Sure, Right! They are just walking skeletons!!

>>Skinny people are in a very bad position when it comes to
>>surviving chemotherapy or any major illness.

>The medical evidence strongly indicates that skinny people
>are much less likely than fat people to contract cancer in
>the first place.

You have to die of something, Schulman, so that means cancer.
Just thought that you might want to know. :)

>More rudeness and projection of your own deficits, Mr. Gohde.

Humans are not rats! Just thought that you might want to know.
:)

"Malnourished and starving people are not good candidates for
spontaneous healing. ... More common reasons for insufficient
metabolic energy are inadequate diets, impaired digestions,
and improper breathinga, all of which are within your
control." -- Andrew Weil, MD in _Spontaneous Healing_

I agree with Dr. Weil on this issue. CR activities depress the
immune system of the human body. Skinny people are in a very
bad position when it comes to surviving chemotherapy or any
major illness.

Educate yourself on the facts, Schulman. Search in medline
under wasting disease, muscle wasting, loss of lean body mass
or sarcopenia, anorexia, and cancer cachexia.

The pictures of people practicing CR are nothing but pictures
of walking skeletons!!!

Hark! My private health newsgroup beckons!
--
John Gohde, Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!

The nutrition of eating a healthy diet is the foundation of
the biomedical model of natural health. Weighing in at 17
webpages, Nutrition
(http://www.Food.NaturalHealthPerspective.com/) is now with
more documentation and sharper terminology than ever before.

[John 'The]

Once upon a time, our fellow Richard Schulman rambled on about
"Re: Fasting on Yom Kippur." Our champion De-Medicalizing in
sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

>CR practitioners are not malnourished.

The biggest bunch of crock being pushed with absolutely no
evidence is that skinny is healthy.

Walking skeletons are *not* healthy. Just thought that you
might want to know. :)

The ideal body weight is at the high end of your normal body
weight and even slightly overweight is good, too. Searching in
medline under wasting disease, muscle wasting, loss of lean
body mass or sarcopenia, anorexia, and cancer cachexia
provides the proof.

Of course, it is best, if you are muscular rather than fat.
--
John Gohde, Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!

Get started on improving your personal health and
fitness, today.
http://www.Tutorials.NaturalHealthPerspective.com/
Offering easy to understand lessons that will change
your life.

[Richard Sc]

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 18:08:10 GMT, John 'the Man'
<DeMan@tc.com> wrote:

>The biggest bunch of crock being pushed with absolutely no
>evidence is that skinny is healthy.

Your idea of skinny seems to be someone in the advanced sector
with anorexia, or a starving peasant in a famine-stricken
sub-Saharan country. Of course, these individuals aren't
healthy! They're malnourished. It's easier to be malnourished
when one is thin than otherwise, simply because food intake is
lower. But skinny is healthy when one has a balanced diet
emphasizing energy-dense foods.

>The ideal body weight is at the high end of your normal body
>weight and even slightly overweight is good, too.

You're claiming that body mass index (BMI) over 25 ("slightly
overweight") is good. The evidence doesn't support this claim.
For males above a BMI of 24, mortality rises, according to the
appended Norwegian study. (There's another issue raised in
this study that needs to be discussed, but I'll save it for a
subsequent post)"

Epidemiology. 2003 May;14(3):293-9.

Height and body mass index in relation to total
mortality.

Engeland A, Bjorge T, Selmer RM, Tverdal A.

Division of Epidemiology, Norwegian Institute of Public
Health, Nydalen, Oslo, Norway. anders.engeland@fhi.no

BACKGROUND: The relation between body mass index (BMI) and
mortality is not clear in the literature. An inverse
relation between height and mortality has been suggested.
We explore these relations in a very large cohort in
Norway. METHODS: We studied two million men and women, age
20-74 years, who were measured during 1963-2000. These
persons were followed for an average of 22.1 years. We
used Cox proportional hazard models in the analyses. Also,
the optimal BMI (the BMI at the time of measurement that
was subsequently related to the lowest mortality) was
estimated. RESULTS: Over the study period, 723,000 deaths
were registered. The relative risk of death by BMI showed
a J- or U-shaped curve, with the lowest rates of death at
BMI between 22.5 and 25.0. In men, the optimal BMI
increased from 21.6 when measured at age 20-29 to 24.0
when measured at age 70-74. In women, the optimal BMI was
consistently higher, increasing from 22.2 to 25.7.
Mortality decreased with increased height in men; in
women, mortality decreased with height only up to heights
of about 160-164 cm and then increased among the tallest
women. CONCLUSIONS: The relation between BMI and mortality
was J- or U-shaped, with the "optimal" BMI varying by age
and sex. Height was inversely related to mortality in men
and in women up to a height of 165 cm.

PMID: 12859029 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
---
Richard Schulman Remove antispamming "-xyz" for email reply

[Rk]

John 'the Man' <DeMan@tc.com> wrote in message
news:<n20oovkevj9qj8d5gjv5ip5jo9d6eu6q34@4ax.com>...
> Once upon a time, our fellow Richard Schulman rambled on
> about "Re: Fasting on Yom Kippur." Our champion
> De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
>
> >CR practitioners are not malnourished.
>
> The biggest bunch of crock being pushed with absolutely no
> evidence is that skinny is healthy.
>
> Walking skeletons are *not* healthy. Just thought that you
> might want to know. :)
>
> The ideal body weight is at the high end of your normal body
> weight and even slightly overweight is good, too. Searching
> in medline under wasting disease, muscle wasting, loss of
> lean body mass or sarcopenia, anorexia, and cancer cachexia
> provides the proof.
>
> Of course, it is best, if you are muscular rather than fat.

Depends on whether you can tell the diference between mean
life span and maximum life span.

[John 'The]

Once upon a time, our fellow RK rambled on about "Re: Fasting
on Yom Kippur." Our champion De-Medicalizing in
sci.med.nursing retorts, thusly ...

>> Of course, it is best, if you are muscular rather than fat.

>Depends on whether you can tell the diference between mean
>life span and maximum life span.

Did you hear the one about RK?

He thinks that he is going to live past the age of 120!

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

He thinks that we should take his nutty CR claims seriously,
because they all are going to live past the age of 120.
Frankly, I think that qualifies him for the funny farm. :(

Ha, ... Hah, Ha! Maybe somebody should let RK in on the joke?

"... you have my sympathies" Science Officer Ash to Ripley, in
the movie ALIEN.

[John 'The]

Once upon a time, our fellow Richard Schulman rambled on about
"Re: Fasting on Yom Kippur." Our champion De-Medicalizing in
sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

>You're claiming that body mass index (BMI) over 25 ("slightly
>overweight") is good. The evidence doesn't support this
>claim. For males above a BMI of 24, mortality rises,
>according to the appended Norwegian study.

You are assuming that everyone is fat, but I certainly am not.

Skinny people don't have any muscle mass. And, no research
study has ever looked at *only* people with excellent muscle
mass. And, no research on rats has ever gotten them to lift
weights and engage in body building.

Just thought that you might want to know. :)
--
John Gohde, Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!

Get started on improving your personal health and
fitness, today.
http://www.Tutorials.NaturalHealthPerspective.com/
Offering easy to understand lessons that will change
your life.

[Rk]

John 'the Man' <DeMan@tc.com> wrote in message
news:<bhgoovc6gj586goj8565nlms8ju3v4ui4b@4ax.com>...
> Once upon a time, our fellow Richard Schulman rambled on
> about "Re: Fasting on Yom Kippur." Our champion
> De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
>
> >You're claiming that body mass index (BMI) over 25
> >("slightly overweight") is good. The evidence doesn't
> >support this claim. For males above a BMI of 24, mortality
> >rises, according to the appended Norwegian study.
>
> You are assuming that everyone is fat, but I certainly am
> not.
>
> Skinny people don't have any muscle mass. And, no research
> study has ever looked at *only* people with excellent muscle
> mass. And, no research on rats has ever gotten them to lift
> weights and engage in body building.
>
> Just thought that you might want to know. :)

You don't know what you're talking about. In fact, you're
barking-mad.

[Richard Sc]

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 22:49:22 GMT, John 'the Man'
<DeMan@tc.com> wrote:

>Once upon a time, our fellow Richard Schulman rambled on
>about "Re: Fasting on Yom Kippur." Our champion
>De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

First of all, someone who starts off all his posts with an
automated adolescent formula like the above is clearly not
interested in reasonable discussion or being taken for
anything other than a clown.

R.S.:
>>You're claiming that body mass index (BMI) over 25
>>("slightly overweight") is good. The evidence doesn't
>>support this claim. For males above a BMI of 24, mortality
>>rises, according to the appended Norwegian study.

John, 'the Man':
>You are assuming that everyone is fat, but I certainly am
>not.

I made no such assumption. You don't seem to read, much less
assimilate, what other people are saying in attempting to
communicate with you. What you did say, however, is that "The
ideal body weight is at the high end of your normal body
weight and even slightly overweight is good, too."

>Skinny people don't have any muscle mass.

You need to go to more ballets and watch more marathons.
Suggestion: the NY Marathon is coming up. Have a look at all
these "walking skeletons" (in your terminology) photographed
at a recent marathon:

http://www.nycmarathon.org/news/index.html

>And, no research study has ever looked at *only* people with
>excellent muscle mass.

Well, what are you waiting for? Maybe Governor-elect
Schwarzenegger will give you a research grant. But scientific
research is one thing, and immature claims without evidence is
another. I'm especially disgusted by your failure to have read
and responded to the refereed Norwegian study I provided in my
last post. When evidence is presented that casts doubt on
one's claim that "slightly overweight is good," a serious
person -- a grownup -- will either accept the refuting
evidence or present a reasonable critique of it. You did
neither. You just ignored the evidence, created a straw man,
and continued your clowning.

>And, no research on rats has ever gotten them to lift weights
>and engage in body building.

More clowning.

>Just thought that you might want to know. :)

And yet more immature clowning. Grow up, John, misnamed
'the Man.'
---
Richard Schulman Remove antispamming "-xyz" for email reply

[Alan Turle]

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 15:03:30 GMT, Richard Schulman wrote:

>First of all, someone who starts off all his posts with an
>automated adolescent formula like the above is clearly not
>interested in reasonable discussion or being taken for
>anything other than a clown.

If you intend to engage John in a considered debate of his
assertions, make sure that you have extra time. You will waste
a lot of it or as much as you choose to invest in him.

If you have been only recently subjected to John's blather,
you might yet have the impression that some expression of
interest on your part will persuade him to engage in
meaningful dialogue. You are mistaken.

John repeatedly demonstrates himself to be either hopelessly
addled or willfully ignorant of the topics of which he speaks,
and his only real expressions of quasi-original thought are
pre-adolescent verbal abuses aimed at anyone redirecting him.
Sadly, even these are a poor excuse for reasoned responses.

Engage him, and he will respond with asinine comments and
affected laughter. Question him, and he may either ignore you,
respond with non sequitors and baseless rebuttal, or accuse
you of unreasonable bias. Tell him he is wrong, and he will
throw intellectual feces at the forum until you reach the only
effective solution. Ignore him.

Unfortunately, even scrupulous disregard of John raises
issues, since absence of rebuke frees him for what he really
wants. He wants to be seen as a knowledgeable guide in your
forum, which he will use to push his health care views as
though educated on the topic. Ignoring him licenses him to
talk, though he is a clear example of who should not.

@~

[John 'The]

Once upon a time, our fellow RK rambled on about "Re: Fasting
on Yom Kippur." Our champion De-Medicalizing in
sci.med.nursing retorts, thusly ...

>You don't know what you're talking about. In fact, you're
>barking-mad.

Ah! The Academic mind at work. :()

Yeah, ... Sure, Right! Science Geeks always know best. :(

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

[John 'The]

Once upon a time, our fellow Richard Schulman rambled on about
"Re: Fasting on Yom Kippur." Our champion De-Medicalizing in
sci.med.nursing retorts, thusly ...

>>And, no research on rats has ever gotten them to lift
>>weights and engage in body building.

>More clowning.

I will repeat it again for the benefit of the intellectually
challenge science geeks on these ngs.

Rats don't lift weights and engage in body building.

Just thought that you might want to know. :)

[John 'The]

Once upon a time, our fellow Alan Turley rambled on about "Re:
Fasting on Yom Kippur." Our champion De-Medicalizing in
sci.med.nursing retorts, thusly ...

Here is one for Alan: Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT
a Science!

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

You can not have a conversation with a broken record. Just
thought that you might want to know. :)

>On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 15:03:30 GMT, Richard Schulman wrote:
>
>>First of all, someone who starts off all his posts with an
>>automated adolescent formula like the above is clearly not
>>interested in reasonable discussion or being taken for
>>anything other than a clown.
>
>If you intend to engage John in a considered debate of his
>assertions, make sure that you have extra time. You will
>waste a lot of it or as much as you choose to invest in him.
>
>If you have been only recently subjected to John's blather,
>you might yet have the impression that some expression of
>interest on your part will persuade him to engage in
>meaningful dialogue. You are mistaken.
>
>John repeatedly demonstrates himself to be either hopelessly
>addled or willfully ignorant of the topics of which he
>speaks, and his only real expressions of quasi-original
>thought are pre-adolescent verbal abuses aimed at anyone
>redirecting him. Sadly, even these are a poor excuse for
>reasoned responses.
>
>Engage him, and he will respond with asinine comments and
>affected laughter. Question him, and he may either ignore
>you, respond with non sequitors and baseless rebuttal, or
>accuse you of unreasonable bias. Tell him he is wrong, and he
>will throw intellectual feces at the forum until you reach
>the only effective solution. Ignore him.
>
>Unfortunately, even scrupulous disregard of John raises
>issues, since absence of rebuke frees him for what he really
>wants. He wants to be seen as a knowledgeable guide in your
>forum, which he will use to push his health care views as
>though educated on the topic. Ignoring him licenses him to
>talk, though he is a clear example of who should not.
>
>@~

[John 'The]

Once upon a time, our fellow Richard Schulman rambled on about
"Re: Fasting on Yom Kippur." Our champion De-Medicalizing in
sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

>First of all, someone who starts off all his posts with an
>automated adolescent formula like the above is clearly not
>interested in reasonable discussion or being taken for
>anything other than a clown.

Gee, and here I thought that I was doing it to piss anal
science geeks really off?

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

[John 'The]

Once upon a time, our fellow Richard Schulman rambled on about
"Re: Fasting on Yom Kippur." Our champion De-Medicalizing in
sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

>First of all, someone who starts off all his posts with an
>automated adolescent formula like the above is clearly not
>interested in reasonable discussion or being taken for
>anything other than a clown.

How about ...

Once upon a time, our pettifogger Richard Schulman rambled on
about "Re: Fasting on Yom Kippur." Our champion
De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

Or, maybe ...

Once upon a time, our bewildered Richard Schulman rambled on
about "Re: Fasting on Yom Kippur." Our champion
De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

Ha, ... Hah, Ha! Consider yourself lucky. :)

[John 'The]

Once upon a time, our fellow Richard Schulman rambled on about
"Re: Fasting on Yom Kippur." Our champion De-Medicalizing in
sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

>First of all, someone who starts off all his posts with an
>automated adolescent formula like the above is clearly not
>interested in reasonable discussion or being taken for
>anything other than a clown.

We just had a thread where everyone agreed that people mostly
top post because nobody writes anything worth quoting. :)

Just thought that you might want to know. :)

Actually, my header is cross-posting friendly.

Just my opinion. But, I am *right* as usual!

[Jeff]

"Tim Tyler" <tim@tt1lock.org> wrote in message
news:HMqKsI.wy@bath.ac.uk...
> Jeff <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote or quoted:
>
> > I don't think fasting has any health benefits. It can
> > disturb bowel
function
> > (nothing to poop out, but bowel function usually is not
> > badly disturbed,
so
> > you miss a poop) and can cause blood sugar to go down
> > (esp. for people
with
> > diabetes on meds). I don't think the risks are that great,
> > though.
> >
> > I don't think fasting is good for you. There are better
> > ways to lose
weight.
> > And it does not cleanse the body of anything. So I don't
> > see any health benefits.
>
> Fasting on alternate days is effective at prolonging life -
> since it results in calorie restriction.

This is no better than eating half as much as you would on a
nonfast day every day.

DUH

Jeff

[Rk]

What happened to your web-site, John? Did it die?

John 'the Man' <DeMan@tc.com> blathered on in message
news:<3dgoovosilkj4fahk40mae7i7cirvd5mn2@4ax.com>..
> Once upon a time, our fellow RK rambled on about "Re:
> Fasting on Yom Kippur." Our champion De-Medicalizing in
> sci.med.nursing retorts, thusly ...
>
> >> Of course, it is best, if you are muscular rather
> >> than fat.
>
> >Depends on whether you can tell the diference between mean
> >life span and maximum life span.
>
> Did you hear the one about RK?
>
> He thinks that he is going to live past the age of 120!
>
> Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
>
> He thinks that we should take his nutty CR claims seriously,
> because they all are going to live past the age of 120.
> Frankly, I think that qualifies him for the funny farm. :(
>
> Ha, ... Hah, Ha! Maybe somebody should let RK in on
> the joke?
>
> "... you have my sympathies" Science Officer Ash to Ripley,
> in the movie ALIEN.

[Richard Sc]

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 04:08:17 GMT, John 'the Man'
<DeMan@fiend.com> wrote:

[cut]

Thank God for kill files. John 'the Jerkoff' must be setting
an alltime record for the number set in his honor.
---
Richard Schulman Remove antispamming "-xyz" for email reply

[John 'The]

Once upon a time, our fellow Richard Schulman rambled on about
"Re: Fasting on Yom Kippur." Our champion De-Medicalizing in
sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

>Thank God for kill files. John 'the Jerkoff' must be setting
>an alltime record for the number set in his honor.

I hate to inform you, but I have been going by John 'the Man'
for quite a few years now. :)
--
It would be nice if commoners would first learn to navigate
the web as well as newsgroups and their newsreaders before
becoming a royal pest.

May I suggest that you use your brain to your advantage once
in a while? Figure out how to use your newsreader. Buy a
newsreader that actually works! Mine does. Beggars can not
be choosy.

Ergo, YOU own the problem. :-)

[Tim]

The misologists are restless tonight.:)

[Tim Tyler]

Jeff <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote or quoted:
> "Tim Tyler" <tim@tt1lock.org> wrote in message
> news:HMqKsI.wy@bath.ac.uk...
>> Jeff <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote or quoted:

>> > I don't think fasting is good for you. There are better
>> > ways to lose weight. And it does not cleanse the body of
>> > anything. So I don't see any health benefits.
>>
>> Fasting on alternate days is effective at prolonging life -
>> since it results in calorie restriction.
>
> This is no better than eating half as much as you would on a
> nonfast day every day.
>
> DUH

That is debatable - see papers like:

``The Protective Effects of Dietary Restriction Can be
Dissociated From Calorie Intake''

- http://www.americanaging.org/past_meetings/AGE02/abslist.h-
tm

``Intermittent fasting dissociates beneficial effects of
dietary restriction on glucose metabolism and neuronal
resistance to injury from calorie intake.

- http://timtyler.org/pmid/?n=12724520

...for more details.

Regular fasting is very good for the health of individuals
that practice it - it slows the aging process and prevents the
onset of diseases.

It is possible to debate whether it is /quite/ as good for you
as a similar CR regime - but either are a whole lot better
than eating in an "ad lib" fashion.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1lock.org Remove
lock to reply.

[Andi B .]

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 19:38:45 GMT, Alan Turley
<arguilios@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 15:03:30 GMT, Richard Schulman wrote:
>
>>First of all, someone who starts off all his posts with an
>>automated adolescent formula like the above is clearly not
>>interested in reasonable discussion or being taken for
>>anything other than a clown.
>
>If you intend to engage John in a considered debate of his
>assertions, make sure that you have extra time. You will
>waste a lot of it or as much as you choose to invest in him.
>
>If you have been only recently subjected to John's blather,
>you might yet have the impression that some expression of
>interest on your part will persuade him to engage in
>meaningful dialogue. You are mistaken.
>
>John repeatedly demonstrates himself to be either hopelessly
>addled or willfully ignorant of the topics of which he
>speaks, and his only real expressions of quasi-original
>thought are pre-adolescent verbal abuses aimed at anyone
>redirecting him. Sadly, even these are a poor excuse for
>reasoned responses.
>
>Engage him, and he will respond with asinine comments and
>affected laughter. Question him, and he may either ignore
>you, respond with non sequitors and baseless rebuttal, or
>accuse you of unreasonable bias. Tell him he is wrong, and he
>will throw intellectual feces at the forum until you reach
>the only effective solution. Ignore him.
>
>Unfortunately, even scrupulous disregard of John raises
>issues, since absence of rebuke frees him for what he really
>wants. He wants to be seen as a knowledgeable guide in your
>forum, which he will use to push his health care views as
>though educated on the topic. Ignoring him licenses him to
>talk, though he is a clear example of who should not.

I second this and I could not agree more with your advice
and your thoughts. But I learned early in life to choose
the battles to fight carefully. And John is not "worthy"
enough. I just put him into my killfile again every time he
chooses an other email address (of fakes it or whatever)
and that is that. I sure hope that any newcomer quickly
sees him as what he is.

Richard, if you look up the reason for a killfile in your
newsreader in its online help, you'll probably find Johns
picture there. Don't waste your time.

Regards,

Andy

[John 'The]

Once upon a time, our fellow Andi B. rambled on about "Re:
Fasting on Yom Kippur." Our champion De-Medicalizing in
sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

>Richard, if you look up the reason for a killfile in your
>newsreader in its online help, you'll probably find Johns
>picture there. Don't waste your time.

Actually, if you had a clue about what you were talking about
you would already know that I had to educate Alan Turley about
the differences between an art and science. :(

You see, Alan Turley is really quite stupid and is just a
typical money grubbing male nurse who has a god complex
because he is totally under paid and under appreciated by
his employer.

I know different. Alan is just a typical arrogant science geek
who has more attitude than brains.

Just my opinion. But, I am *right* as usual!

[B-Ob1]

John 'the Man' wrote:

> Once upon a time, our fellow Richard Schulman rambled on
> about "Re: Fasting on Yom Kippur." Our champion
> De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
>
> >First of all, someone who starts off all his posts with an
> >automated adolescent formula like the above is clearly not
> >interested in reasonable discussion or being taken for
> >anything other than a clown.
>
> We just had a thread where everyone agreed that people
> mostly top post because nobody writes anything worth
> quoting. :)
>
> Just thought that you might want to know. :)
>
> Actually, my header is cross-posting friendly.
>
> Just my opinion. But, I am *right* as usual!

""right"...spelled TRITE..B-0b1

[John 'The]

Once upon a time, our fellow B-Ob1 rambled on about "Re:
Fasting on Yom Kippur." Our champion De-Medicalizing in
sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

> ""right"...spelled TRITE..B-0b1

Talking about yourself ... Ob-1?

"... you have my sympathies" Science Officer Ash to Ripley, in
the movie ALIEN.

[Moosh!]

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 09:12:10 GMT, Tim Tyler
<tim@tt1lock.org> posted:

>Jeff <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote or quoted:
>> "Tim Tyler" <tim@tt1lock.org> wrote in message
>> news:HMqKsI.wy@bath.ac.uk...
>>> Jeff <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote or quoted:
>
>>> > I don't think fasting is good for you. There are better
>>> > ways to lose weight. And it does not cleanse the body of
>>> > anything. So I don't see any health benefits.
>>>
>>> Fasting on alternate days is effective at prolonging life
>>> - since it results in calorie restriction.
>>
>> This is no better than eating half as much as you would on
>> a nonfast day every day.
>>
>> DUH
>
>That is debatable - see papers like:
>
>``The Protective Effects of Dietary Restriction Can be
>Dissociated From Calorie Intake''
>
> - http://www.americanaging.org/past_meetings/AGE02/absli-
> st.htm
>
>``Intermittent fasting dissociates beneficial effects of
>dietary restriction on glucose metabolism and neuronal
>resistance to injury from calorie intake.
>
> - http://timtyler.org/pmid/?n=12724520
>
>...for more details.
>
>Regular fasting is very good for the health of individuals
>that practice it - it slows the aging process and prevents
>the onset of diseases.
>
>It is possible to debate whether it is /quite/ as good for
>you as a similar CR regime - but either are a whole lot
>better than eating in an "ad lib" fashion.

Supposition. A rat's ad libitum is not the same thing as a
human's ad libtum.

[Raisin Bal]

Actually, a fast such as Muslims do it, rarely results in loss
of calorie restriction, since the two meals eaten before and
after are larger than normal. Of course, Ramadan is a great
time to tlose weight if you are fat. The normal Ramadan diet
consists mainly of complex carbs.

[Rk]

John 'the Man' <DeMan@tc.com> wrote in message
news:<2throvkb2r4kf7b4cmibg5pqnctce7lrbm@4ax.com>...
> Once upon a time, our fellow Richard Schulman rambled on
> about "Re: Fasting on Yom Kippur." Our champion
> De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nursing retorts, thusly ...

What the f--- is that supposed to mean?

>
> >>And, no research on rats has ever gotten them to lift
> >>weights and engage in body building.
>
> >More clowning.
>
> I will repeat it again for the benefit of the intellectually
> challenge science geeks on these ngs.
>
> Rats don't lift weights and engage in body building.
>

Rats don't smoke cigarettes, either.

Just thought that you might want to know. :)

[John 'The]

Once upon a time, our fellow RK rambled on about "Re: Fasting
on Yom Kippur." Our champion De-Medicalizing in
sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

>What the f--- is that supposed to mean?

Ah! The Academic mind at work. :()

[Rk]

John 'the Man' <DeMan@ffMD.com> wrote in message
news:<2r2fqv019dv4g5ah12gdmmtodk78dsa4pn@4ax.com>...
> Once upon a time, our fellow RK rambled on about "Re:
> Fasting on Yom Kippur." Our champion De-Medicalizing in
> sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
>
> >What the f--- is that supposed to mean?
>
> Ah! The Academic mind at work. :()

Answer the question.

[Rk]

John 'the Man' <DeMan@ffMD.com> wrote in message
news:<2r2fqv019dv4g5ah12gdmmtodk78dsa4pn@4ax.com>...
> Once upon a time, our fellow RK rambled on about "Re:
> Fasting on Yom Kippur." Our champion De-Medicalizing in
> sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
>
> >What the f--- is that supposed to mean?
>
> Ah! The Academic mind at work. :()

Answer the question.

[Jaym1212]

> > Fasting on alternate days is effective at prolonging life
> > - since it results in calorie restriction.
>
> This is no better than eating half as much as you would on a
> nonfast day every day.

For equal number of calories over the long term: Is it
possible that EOD allows the body to detox more efficiently?
Is it possible that EOD tricks the body in a higher
conservation mode because a full day without food seems more
severe than reduced calorie everyday?

[Mark Hamme]

The thing is not to fast too fast. You want to fast slow.
Much better.

[Tim Tyler]

jaym1212 <jaym1212@hotmail.com> wrote or quoted:

>> > Fasting on alternate days is effective at prolonging life
>> > - since it results in calorie restriction.
>>
>> This is no better than eating half as much as you would on
>> a nonfast day every day.
>
> For equal number of calories over the long term: Is it
> possible that EOD allows the body to detox more efficiently?
> Is it possible that EOD tricks the body in a higher
> conservation mode because a full day without food seems more
> severe than reduced calorie everyday?

Both are possibilities - and even have some experimental
support.

However at the moment it is possible that the benefits
are counteracted by other factors - such as increased
stress levels.

These are still relatively early days for scientific
investigation of intermittent fasting as a health-promoting
intervention.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1lock.org Remove
lock to reply.

[John 'The]

Once upon a time, our fellow Tim Tyler rambled on about "Re:
Fasting on Yom Kippur." Our champion De-Medicalizing in
sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

>However at the moment it is possible that the benefits
>are counteracted by other factors - such as increased
>stress levels.

Stress has at least one mode of action or mechanism called
inflammation. I reported on four recent 2003 - 2002 studies
that have documented specific markes of inflammation as one
mode of action for various types of stress in my Yahoo Group.

Ergo, the biomedical model of medicine is defective. The
biopsychosocial model of health, otherwise known as the mind -
body connection is correct. :)

Just thought that you might want to know. :)
--
John Gohde, Achieving good Health is an Art, NOT a Science!

Health-with-Attitude is a support group for people trying to
follow a Healthy Lifestyle.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Health-with-Attitude/