Recently I decided to go as long without food as I can (just mineral water). The first 3 days were fine, but the following night I was feeling nauseous, and ended up vomiting something bile-like at 3am. Tried eating a small piece of an apple, vomited again. After that, I felt slightly better, but my desire to continue with the fast disappeared, so I started eating again in the morning.
My advice for anyone interested in fasting would be to go slow. If never tried it before, start with a 24 hour fast - i.e. eat dinner, then nothing until dinner time the next day. If that went fine, next week try a 36 hour fast - i.e. dinner, no food the next day, and eat breakfast the day after. If that goes well again, continue extending the fasting time, but also allow yourself time in between. Eventually you will get a grasp and some feeling about how long is too long, or how often you can do fasts - I don't think there is much science on the topic.
I did 36 hour fasts, then I did 48 hour fasts, then I went for 3 days, then for 4, finally for 5 - over a course of several years actually. May try a longer fast in the future, but my current schedule is to have a weekly 36 hour fast - at least, most weeks.
I agree that fasting hits everyone differently, but then, the same can be said of drugs. It's ludicrous to think that one day we will have a drug that mimics the effects of fasting, but without any negative side effects. Whatever drug they come up with in the end, it will have its various effects that hit different people in different ways. Which brings up the obvious point, if the drug does no more than fasting, with whatever side effects fasting raises, then what is the advantage of the drug?
> Which brings up the obvious point, if the drug does no more than fasting, with whatever side effects fasting raises, then what is the advantage of the drug?
That it could be patented and sold, as could be the drugs that combat the side effects of the drugs invented to combat side effects.
