Against fasting:

I have always wondered if scientists had really studied the question of
efficiency and dangers of fasting. After a few discussions, the only
drawback I found was the following (I am not sure of the validity of
all the assertions):

Under normal conditions, the central nervous system relies on glucids
for its supply in energy. However, after a few days of fasting, two
thirds of the energy comes from ketonic bodies (for the brain alone,
the energy is supplied, half by glucids, half by ketonic bodies).

That doesn't prevent glycemia from being abnormally low. Moreover, the
ketones are toxic: hence a higher mortality rate of neurons.

Could anyone confirm that?

Other remarks about fasting:

1) Lack of vitamins, etc...
The fact that someone who fasts never gets beri-beri doesn't prove he
doesn't lack vitamins. The fast being limited in time, he may not have
developed serious symptoms yet; or maybe the troubles due to the lack
of vitamins are overwhelmed by the detoxification process and the
"weakness". Shelton considers that, even if there was a deficit in
vitamins, the benefits of fasting are in any case superior.
It would be interesting to carry out experiments on the subject: for
instance, give to rats supplements in vitamins and see if they survive
longer. Another natural question: does the body lack minerals (or other
substances)?

2) Only sick animals fast naturally: they rest until they get better.
Burger doesn't advocate fasting, except if instinctive. But should we
obey our instinct? Under natural conditions, food may become scarce, and
the weakness makes us vulnerable to predators and harsh climatic conditions.
So, for a healthy animal, eating is generally more beneficial than
fasting. But don't insects in search of light burn themselves in the
fire? Maybe occasional fasting for humans who can rest in a cozy apartment,
and who know they can easily find food whenever they want (which are
not natural conditions), can help detoxifying.


Best,

Jean-Louis