LLight
Member
- Joined
- May 30, 2018
- Messages
- 1,415
It's not a logical fallacy at all. I even gave you an hypothetical effect of fasting that could lead to such a situation (fasting improving intestinal permeability).It's a logical fallacy to state that not eating good food is better than eating good food.
"Good" being defined as nutritious with no toxins or negative side effects.
And you've yet to explain how fasting could help/protect against endotoxins or other toxins when it's practiced like less than 5% of the time for example.
She went from bedridden to completely fine, and it was just luck, as other cases mentioned. That is medecine level of denial.I am glad the person in your example felt better and got good results from fasting, but it doesn't mean that it was due to fact that they avoided food altogether.
Back to point number 1.It was most likely just harm avoidance.
I'm aware of endotoxins but there is no logical connection with the case in question, not in the way you seem to explain it anyway. Maybe her intestines is less porous to endotoxins after her fast, maybe the liver healed and she is able to detox better now.Many miss the overall scope of the fasting discussion as well as the facts about endotoxin.
Haaaa, the famous "context", misunderstood by people not having seen the light. I could say that studying water fasting and projecting the results to other forms of fasting (especially dry fasting, which is the way people generally fast in religions, or to reach special state of conciousness) would quite miss the context!Any food could produce endotoxin in the gut depending on the overall condition of the person eating the food, how well the food was cooked, etc.
So what is the context?
Indeed, but that's not what people are saying. I wouldn't advise dry fasting to an old people dying or to a new born of course, but it's a tool that can be helpful to some. Again, saying that we don't necessarily understand all the mechanisms of fasting is not invoking magic power.Simply making a statement that fasting (not eating) is good or it's bad or has some mysterious magical benefits is not helpful.
That's the definition of fasting (it was dry fasting for your information).An example was provided in your post of someone who was sick and how they received benefits from avoiding food for certain periods of time.
Scientism.That is not a scientific analysis.
The context is very simple. She was almost dying and got her life back by doing prolonged dry fasts. Think more than 7 days without eating or drinking.What foods were avoided? For how long? What is the age of the subject? What diseases do they have?
Again, what is the context?
All food were avoided of course. I would say the lady is in her 40's and she had Lyme's disease (what it really means in pratictice is subject to debate).
No, this does not explain the results in the same way that endotoxins avoidance doesn't explain what benefits she got."Feeling good" could easily be explained away by the "fight/flight" hormones that are excreted during fasting.
That's cool that you found something that's working for you.All I know is that I am receiving very good results from not fasting and just avoiding harmful foods that have anti-nutrients and produce endotoxin.