Re: Summary revisited

Hi arn.

I believe that you are trying to draw a line under this discussion before moving on but I must take you up on a few points.

You said: "Long fasts result in a reduction in the mass of muscles and other parts of the body, which results in the body becoming weaker. You want maximum strength when an injury is healing."

Your stand is illogical as 1) no-one has specifically advocated a long fast for healing an ankle injury and 2) what is the point of feeding a body that has been immobilised by injury and should be afforded maximum rest and recovery time.

A fast of 1 week might be enough to bring the ankle up to a sufficient standard to begin normal use.

If you had an injury to an intestine, would you still insist on normal food intake even though you (should) know that intestines cannot heal properly with food constantly passing through them. It is well documented in many fasting books that such defects whether self-imposed by unhealthy living or caused by trauma require long fasts and sometimes several long fasts to heal fully.

What's more, it is logical that healing will be faster if all non-essential energy is made available to the task. If much of the body's energy is tied up in preparing, consuming, digesting and eliminating waste from food, the amount of energy available for recovery will be reduced.

You said "The only way to prove this would be to get two groups of people with ankle sprains of equal severity, and let one group use each method, and see how long healing takes. This is not possible, as you can't get a large number of people with ankle sprains at the same time. If you did, the severity of the sprain may vary from person to person, so the time taken for healing would also vary, which ever method they used. So it is not possible."

A valid trial does not require all participants to get injured and recover simultaneously. It only requires random assignment to a group upon occurrence, specific instructions to be followed to limit variables, proper monitoring by qualified individuals who will not pass on their bias to the participant, honest documentation and independent, qualified statistical analysis of the results. It also requires funding which is where most trials really come unstuck but the main problem we would have is getting the medical profession to agree to the trial in the first place as they will be the ones most likely to encounter valid participants.


You also said "I would strongly encourage you all to think past the idea that one treatment suits all." As many here continuously reiterate, fasting is not a "treatment!" It is an extensive rest. The "treatment" is allowing the body to do what only the body can do - heal itself.

You said "There is no point in any of us continuing to repeat the same information in different ways. Sometimes you need to accept that we genuinely have different opinions. We can all continue to learn. At some time in the future, all of us may understand better."

I believe that there is a point in repeating correct information when incorrect information is being posted. I accept that we all will choose to believe what we think is correct but I think it's healthy to have my beliefs challenged as it will either enable me to confirm their validity or realise any flaws in my assumptions.

You finally said "Let's all continue to do what we can to have a positive influence." Amen to that!

NH... Tweet