Fasting Fractally

Mr_Knight

This was recently posted elsewhere by Nassim Taleb (yes, the Black Swan "Randomness" dude)...

I am trying to provide a probabilistic structure for fasting in nature assuming meal frequency follows a certain power law of various thickness of tails and scale.

Assuming that nature has traditionally delivered food to us with some periods of famines, it is foolish to think that it would have irregularity at a single scale, say one a week, but not at a different scale. So if we are deprived of food once a week for about one day, we should also be deprived of food for 2 consecutive days every month (or fortnight, etc.), and for an entire week every couple of years.

Recall that we are calibrated for occasional deprivation.

It's certainly up for debate on the "right" frequency for the longer fasts, but the principle is sound. We most definitely evolved to handle extended periods without food, and nature doesn't do things by the clock or by the 7 day calendar.

I do the daily fast thing reasonably regularly, and I think may try the 2-dayer as well. Not sure about the week-longer. :drinker:

Taleb's original short analysis...

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8nhAlfIk3QISldaN2dPd2VlMGs/edit

PatchEFog

I find this interesting. Thank you.

_Zardoz_

This was recently posted elsewhere by Nassim Taleb (yes, the Black Swan "Randomness" dude)...

I am trying to provide a probabilistic structure for fasting in nature assuming meal frequency follows a certain power law of various thickness of tails and scale.

Assuming that nature has traditionally delivered food to us with some periods of famines, it is foolish to think that it would have irregularity at a single scale, say one a week, but not at a different scale. So if we are deprived of food once a week for about one day, we should also be deprived of food for 2 consecutive days every month (or fortnight, etc.), and for an entire week every couple of years.

Recall that we are calibrated for occasional deprivation.

It's certainly up for debate on the "right" frequency for the longer fasts, but the principle is sound. We most definitely evolved to handle extended periods without food, and nature doesn't do things by the clock or by the 7 day calendar.

I do the daily fast thing reasonably regularly, and I think may try the 2-dayer as well. Not sure about the week-longer. :drinker:

Taleb's original short analysis...

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8nhAlfIk3QISldaN2dPd2VlMGs/edit

What do you mean by 'Right' Frequency. Right frequency for what? Health, weightloss or when you can next find a mammoth to eat? There are many things that we evolved or adapted to do in order to survive as a species that does not mean they are applicable to 21st century life. In the same way the abacus has fallen to the wayside many other systems and processes have been superseded. It's the same futile argument the Paleo crowd give. The fact that we used to eat like that (who new cavemen ate so much cauliflower). Well if we used to eat chocolate as cavemen would they be eating that? Just because environmentally and due to food availability a fast was forced upon man in lean times does not mean that was a healthier way to live.

Mr_Knight

Just because environmentally and due to food availability a fast was forced upon man in lean times does not mean that was a healthier way to live.

Are you saying it's not a healthier way to live?

Graelwyn75

I tend to intermittent fast, when I can. The most I have managed is around 19 hours though, and when in a deficit and doing my bike rides, boxing, running etc, I find it is too hard to manage more than 14-16 hours without food. To me, it just makes sense that the body will do better without having to work overtime digesting food 24/7. I think food is too readily available in modern day society, and people have forgotten what it is to actually be genuinely hungry, often eating more out of habit, boredom or simply because it is there and looks enticing. But that is simply my opinion, and everyone must do what suits their individual needs and beliefs.

PatchEFog

Sugar burner are ye? :laugh:

Graelwyn75

Sugar burner are ye? :laugh:

Not to sure to what you are referring ?

ScientificExplorerGirl

The positive impact of fasting is actually supported by recently published scientific research:

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/06/22/scientists-discover-that-fasting-triggers-stem-cell-regeneration-fights-cancer/

and

http://www.cell.com/cell-stem-cell/abstract/S1934-5909(14)00151-9

Iwishyouwell

Fasting is a regular, welcome part of my life. I will always fast, for spiritual and physical benefits. It's the perfect solution, for me, for both weight loss and weight maintenance.

And as someone who has undertaken a LONG water only fast in the past, I know it can be safe if you do it correctly and are in good health. There is so much ignorance about fasting that it's not even worth trying to combat.