Talk:Fasting/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Order

I've reformatted the article (put all the faiths in alphabetical order) added a "main article" note under political fasts, and generally straightened things. I also removed the cleanup tag, as there don't appear to be any obvious cleanup needs at this time; the content looks good and it seems well formatted. There wasn't any discussion here of what points necessitated cleanup, so if anyone has objections, roll back the changes or reinsert the cleanup tag, but make sure to list suggestions for cleanup here as well. -- Essjay · Talk July 7, 2005 21:36 (UTC)

My concern, and why I added the cleanup tag, was about some of the religious sections and their need for fact-checking (before I visited the article, the section on Jainism refered to a monk who fasted for a year (!)). Pakaran 22:38, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Does it look okay now, or do you think it needs some kind of verification tag? -- Essjay · Talk 23:05, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not particularly concerned about it, thanks though :) Pakaran 23:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

S'okay with me! -- Essjay · Talk

It can always use fact checking, but other than that, it's fine. HereToHelp 12:16, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I would prefer to have the order chronologically. Anyone agrees? Wiki-uk 11:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I like the current alphabetic order. -- Jeff3000 16:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Economic and social functions

The article treats fasting, for the most part, as a ritual (and also medical treatment or biological state), and it does not address sufficiently the actual social-economic functions of fasting. It mentions briefly "political" reasons, but it does not attempt to provide an explanation of the religious and cultural practice. Why have people in various cultures arrived at fasting as a ritual, tradition, or religious practice? Is it because of seasonal food scarcities? Is it because of perceived health benefits? Why does culture shroud the real reasons for fasting with spiritual, political, or cultural ideologies? There ought to be some research and theory about this out there. Would a sociologist, historian, or economist who studies these matters perhaps provide a brief summary? 199.89.175.5 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC).

Glucose is not the body's preferred fuel

The first statement of the "health effects" section is wildly inaccurate, and cites no references.

The body is well adept at using short and long chain fatty acids for energy, and they are the preferred source for a variety of reasons, including their greater energy density per carbon atom.

eg -> palmitic acid (16 carbons, molecular weight 256) yeilds 130 ATP glucose (6 carbons, molecular weight 180) yields 36 ATP

The information about the brain functioning on glucose is also misleading, as it is an open question as to how neurons actually generate energy from glucose, with some theories suggesting that astrocytes place an important first stage role in converting glucose, or ketones to acetyl-coa.

[1] [2]

71.232.24.250 (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Chris D

Abstaining on Christmas Eve?

I've grown up in a Catholic household and never do I recall abstaining on December 24. Anyone want to comment on this? I don't have to worry, though. I'm a vegetarian. ;p --Ryan 07:06, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

When you say growing up, was this before or after the reforms introduced by Paul VI? Because of Paul's reforms all the fasting and abstainance requirements were reduced down to the current regulations, those being fasting and abstainance on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday, and abstainance on all Fridays of Lent. I was born after all the reforms were done, and abstaining was never part of either Christmas Eve or Day when I was growing up.

JesseG 06:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I tried to find a place to talk for the Fasting and Abstinence in the Roman Catholic Tradition article, but perhaps it's not up yet. I have never learned or taught that in the United States fast and abstinence must be observed on Holy Saturday until noon or that Christmas Eve is a day of abstinence. Please note whether those two are worldwide observances or whether they are particular to an area.

A related issue is that it would be helpful if you would note somewhere that bishops or national conferences of bishops determine specific dispensations by diocese or by country. I believe it is the bishop of a diocese rather than an individual priest who can give a dispensation for St. Patrick's Day, for example.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.43.10.189 (talk • contribs)

Hunger strikes

Political fasts (today more commonly known as the hunger strikes) seem to be an invention of Mohandas Gandhi

I thought that I read that Irish political prisoners were engaging in hunger strikes before or at about the same time as Gandhi was fasting for political purposes. I'll fact check when I get a chance, but if anyone else wants to look into this that'd work too.

Hbackman 05:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I've seen mention of suffragettes fasting as early as 1909, which is quite a bit earlier than Ghandi. So it's certainly not the invention of him, but may be correctly said 'popularized the use of hunger strikes' or something -- garlic --208.20.220.69 21:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

---

In the book "Ten Men Dead," David beresford gives some history of the hunger strike. I have used this information to add some information to its history, in the actual hunger strike article.

--L.A.F. 08:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Silence

I guess silence as a form of fasting is worth a mention here , rarely practiced today , but historically important.Pasha 12:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

you probably thinking on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vow vow of silence which is a different issue

Actually, silence as a form of fasting would belong in this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.242.47.185 (talk • contribs)

Some religious traditions have included mental concepts or spiritual energy under a general rubric of "food", portraying some as harmful, some as beneficial, and often placing great emphasis on complete abstinence. This could justify briefly mentioning silence in this section. I believe, however, that it is properly placed in a discussion of forms of celibacy and renunciation, not fasting per se. -79.138.251.120 (talk) 00:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Lars, Copenhagen.

Judaism certainly has a practise of taanit dibbur - "a fast from speech", i.e. abstaining from any speech (apart from prayer and Torah study) for some specified time (e.g. a day, or a morning). -- Zsero (talk) 01:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but that is really not the focus of this article. This article is about abstention from food and drink specifically. At best it deserves a sentence or two, but I would leave it for some other article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.100.7 (talk) 19:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Fasting and Abstinence in the Roman Catholic Church

I created an article called Fasting and Abstinence in the Roman Catholic Church, and have used the new article to provide a more detailed explanation of fasting within the church. I did create a summary of the current regulations, and gave a brief history of the subject before Pius XII and Paul VI. If anyone feels that the summary needs more detail, I hope that they would feel free to make improvements on the summary and to not just revert the main article to an earlier version as has been done in the past.
JesseG 06:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Physical effects of fasting

In the "Physical effects of fasting" section it states "after approximately three days of fasting, feelings of hunger usually become infrequent or disappear altogether." I thought that one dies ater around three days of fasting, so if someone can find a citation for this, the statement will no longer need a direct a citation. But, I mean, that's only because the person would be dead after three days, and can no longer feel anything. But maybe what is meant by this is fasting without food (while drinking water) in which this would be a very different case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.54.241.173 (talk • contribs)

In general, the survival training rule of thumb is that you can survive 3 minutes without air, 3 days without water and 30 days without food. According to Merriam-Websters Medical Dictionary Fasting means "To abstain from food". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.173.224 (talk) 23:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

You idiot! What is that based on exactly? Even a lean person can fast for 40+ days. Research it before making such ignorant comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.37.150 (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression that it took much longer than 3 days to die from fasting.. that is, if the allowance of drinking water is taken.--68.56.0.116 15:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

apers0n 18:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC) Citation added from Shelton (maybe someone could clean it up to list the reference properly) - this whole section ideally needs expanding

People do not die after three days of fasting -- that is nonsensical. People regularly go on water fasts for days and weeks -- on a fruit/vegetable juice fast I did for 42 days, I took water only for days at a time. I'm still here, thanks.

One will most likely die after 3 days of no water. However, most adults, with no medical complications such as diabetes or hypoglycemia, can go 20-40 days without food, depending on how much they have in "reserves." I personally have gone 4 days with drinking only water, and know many people who have gone weeks. It should be noted, however, that hunger pangs do not leave after 3 or 4 days, but actually after 7 to 9 days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.164.20.34 (talk) 17:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Fasting at this moment, am in my 7th day, only on water and tea. Nothing else. Several of my friends have water fasted for 24+ days with no problems whatsoever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.183.221 (talk) 17:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

On April 10th I completed a 27 day "juice & water fast" or liquid diet. A true fast would be "water only". I did make carrot, celery juice with my Acme juicer but also used store bought O.J, V8, apple, tea etc. I felt great & lost weight (1 lb/day)while maintaing my usually busy work routine. I like to do this twice/yr but it had been 5 yrs since my last fast. Truth is that I felt better, had more energy, felt more serene while fasting than I did when I started eating again. I first fasted in 1976 after reading Alan Cott's Fasting the Ultimate Diet. I later read Paavo Airola, Arnold Ehret, Sheldon Emry, Paul Bragg & many other's fasting books. My experience is fasting is much easier that trying to diet. Any stirrings of hunger are easily quieted by drinking as much liquid as you want. I wouldn't advise booze unless you want to join AA. I do believe I'm healthier & look younger than my 66 years. I've had no shots, medicinal drugs or even asprin since 1976. I have no health concerns that bother me and feel that periodic fasting is a healthy practice. I would encourage everyone to study this subject. Faster66 (talk) 20:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm on day 30 of a water fast and I feel great. I have more energy now than I have had in the past several years. I plan to go 40 days and end with a 2 week juice fast before resuming food. The most important thing is the diet and lifestyle you adhere to after the fast. The diet should be healthy and exercise should be daily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.126.185 (talk) 15:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Redirect

Why does Roza redirect to Fasting? I need to make Roza a disambiguation page, and am not sure how to describe the existing redirect. Any help would be much appreciated.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 16:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

apers0n 17:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC) Roza appears to be the Moslem word for fasting as practised during Ramadan [3] - are there any other meanings for disambiguation? if so, go to this page [4] to edit the redirect page.

Thanks, Apers0n, this was exactly what I needed for the disambiguation page.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 17:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Jainism clean-up

I've cleaned up the section about fasting in Jainism but am unsure about what the author means to say exactly, especially with the word "obeiasance" or something like that. So until there is further clarification, this is all I can do. Dihydromonoxide 13:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merger with Fast Day

Fast Day and Fasting certainly share similar content and should be merged, but I wonder if it would be better to break off all the religious content into a separate article that reflects the religious nature as opposed to the secular, such as "Religious fasting"? --apers0n 05:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the merge. Although Fast Days are no longer observed in the US, they are in other countries, where although their origins are religious, they have become mostly secular and are a type of public holiday. This isnt a strong opinion though --Storkk 12:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Master Cleanse

Anybody heard of the Master cleanse? Maple syrup and lemon juice and cyan pepper. It has a bunch of google hits.

It's effective I've used it to change health conditions and the compination of lemon, syrup and cayenne feels like a real organ conditioner. (RIA)

I've done Master Cleanse a few times as well as water fasting. MC is certainly hotly disputed on Wikipedia:Master Cleanse, but that page lacks enough information to do it correctly. It's in a little booklet you can buy or download TheMasterCleanse.pdf It's probably the most popular and certainly the most talked about among many versions of the "lemonade diet" which goes back at least 100 years. The main ingredient is the food enzymes contained in the fresh squeezed lemon juice which keeps you from getting hungry. Despite what Burroughs says, it should not be consumed hot as heat destroys food enzymes. The maple syrup is mainly there to limit the loss of body weight for thinner people; The nutrients in the syrup is a non-issue because just like water fasting, you don't require much because you're not taxing the digestive system or doing heavy physical labor; You're body's reserves are sufficient. The cayenne is supposed to wake up your cells for faster detox. Every two or three days on MC you'll begin to feel pretty low which Burroughs attributes to toxins building up in the digestive system, but I suspect it's a build up of cayenne pepper. To eliminate this he recommends the "salt water flush" which is laxative of sea salt in warm water; This gives you the runs for most the day. I donno where some people get off calling it a "top-down enema"; That's not the term used in his book and something I never heard before and contradicts the defination of an enema; Sounds like something made up to smear MC as the sea salt as a laxative is almost unheard of except with MC. I found that adding a small amount of fiber supplement works just as good as the laxative to keep you feeling well, but unafraid to stray far from the toilet and without disrupting your day; However, it's real easy to get constipated on fiber supplement by consuming it without food. Some people do this diet for up to 30 days straight, but they don't dare without quite a bit of prior experience. It's as close to water fasting you can get, but quite a bit easier and safer. 15+ day water fast done incorrectly can seriously damage your health or even cause death. Like water fasting, you'll be more mentally clear and require less sleep while on the lemonade diet. Just like water fasting, if done correctly you shouldn't be hungry or fatigued and should generally feel pretty darn good with only short moments of discomfort as toxins decide to move. And that's the overall general test to know if things are going well is how well you generally feel.

I find it interesting that Burroughs was convicted (later overturned) for murder because one of his patients died while following his advice go on Master Cleanse and refuse chemotherapy. MOST people who go on chemo die soon after. ALL but ONE person whom I've known who went on chemo died soon after, and the one survivor never really looked sick. 1500 people PER DAY die on chemo in the US, but just ONE person who was already very sick dies trying an alternative method and then here comes the law and lawsuits. Half a million people a year spend their life savings on mainstream cancer treatments, end up dying anyway and leave their surviving spouse deep in debt and that's ok, but just ONE person fails in an attempt to help someone with an inexpensive alternative and off to jail he goes. The system is so freekin corrupt, institutionalized corruption. Wouldn't surprise me if some of the people disputing Master Cleanse on Wikipedia actually work for the medical industry. There is certainly a big machinery to suppress alternatives. If you have any doubts about this, check out this excellent documentary on the war between the mainstream and alternative medicine in the 1960s: Free download: Hoxsey, the last great stand against the mainstream. This link doesn't seem to work quite right in the preview, please scroll down to Hoxsey: How Healing Becomes a Crime Ralph7770 (talk) 08:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Fasting in Indigenous cultures in North and South America

I think there should be information about cultures in North and South America with regards to the Indigenous because fasting is a part of many of their cultures, spiritual practices, and ceremonies. OldManRivers 06:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph about Karen Kellock's views

User:Karenkellock has added a paragraph about her views on fasting. I don't think she meets the Wikipedia criteria for notability and this paragraph should be deleted. Thoughts? Rosemary Amey 21:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

agree. -- Jeff3000 22:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it seems to be a joke and "violation". Maybe there's someone who's listening. It's both irrelevant and irreverent. (IB)

External Link Removal

I have noticed in several areas which relate to religion and to Biblical topics that links are reduced to a bare minimum; many of the links which remain are innocuous and probably rarely used (e.g., links to the KJV of the Bible). I added the following link with the following verbiage:

• Christian fasting Most extensive online examination of fasting covering every related verse from the Old and New Testaments.

Originally the link was much shorter, but I felt that perhaps I needed to justify its existence, after it was removed the first time. This particular examination of Christian fasting examines every single verse in the Bible which references fasting (including those verses which are questionable). The original Greek and Hebrew words and related words are given as well. This is approximately a 38 page document, too large to be placed within this topic.

It is interesting that, on some topics, like "Michael Moore" and "Global Warming" there are a plethora of links; however, when it comes to the Bible or Biblical topics, the external links are often a fraction of the number of external links found elsewhere.Scutfargus 16:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Propose rearrangig

Feeling drawn to a minor cleanup in 'Physical effecs of fasting' (BMR), I find the material informative but the current sequence not catering well to a general audience. Keeping the first paragraph and all content intact, I propose following sequence,

1. Physical effects of fasting
2. Medical fasting
3. Political fasting and hunger strikes
4. Religious fasting
5. Fasting in literature

Bernd in Japan 23:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

LDS

Why is the Latter Day Saints in its own subsection rather than with the other denominations and groups? According to wikipedia a denomination is "The term is frequently used to describe various groupings of Christian churches." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_denomination Tom 08:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Many Christians and Religious specialist define the LDS as a Christian cult. The LDS usually see themselves as a restoration movement (i.e. the one true church) and until recent times have not referred themselves as a denomination in Christianity but as the only true form of Christianity. Hence, LDS doctrine defines others that claim to be Christians as the true cults. See http://www.leaderu.com/offices/michaeldavis/docs/mormonism/onlytrue.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.184.43.141 (talk) 02:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

This does not address any of those questions. You didn't cite how wikipedia should handle this, or why it does in this manner. You cited a non wikipeida reason that has nothing to do with this. Try stating a Wikipedia policy or guideline to back this up. Furthermore, your use of cult is counterintuitive on a restorative church. See Christian cults and definition. Lastly, your comment, and the reference you provide are hardly NPOV. 166.70.62.200 (talk) 10:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

"Mormonism" is listed as a Christian denomination, so this should be moved within the Christian subsection. (Grignaak (talk) 04:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC))

horrible sources

Like many medical articles the sources for this are ridiculous, many of referrenced books read like stupid shit you would order from a infomercial. Especially in the medical fasting section, the majority of all content written there is false and what is cited is cited from something so retarded and non scientific as well as old and discredited it makes me want to sue this damned wikipedia nonsense. "# ^ Fuhrman, Joel, MD, Fasting and Eating for Health : A Medical Doctor's Program for Conquering Disease 1998, pp. 1, 3, 21-23, 56-59, 70-72, 79-81 ISBN 0-312-18719-X"

Is not a reputable medical resource and no doctor that I know, including me would agree with the absolute asinine assertions taken from that infomercial sold piece of garbage... I'm removing it and protesting its reversion. 71.87.7.14 08:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Have you even read Dr. Fuhrman's book? I doubt it. I have, and have done pure water fasts of up to 14 days. I am 69 years old and take no medications. When I had a colonoscopy a couple of years ago, the doctor who performed it told me afterwards that I had the colon of a 30 year old, the best colon he'd ever seen in a man my age. I attribute that to the 10 day pure water fast I'd taken the year before. He had also pronounced me "cured" of hypertension after that fast.

Dr. Fuhrman's book is thoroughly referenced. It is not an infomercial book as you state. In fact it is well recommended by other physicians. Dr. Fuhrman "is a board-certified family physician in private practice in Belle Mead, New Jersey, who specializes in preventing and reversing disease through nutritional methods. He is an active staff member of Hunterdon Medical Centre and provides nutritionally oriented medical care to patients as well as nutritional education to other physicians."

The Foreward to his book is written by Neal D. Barnard, MD, President, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. He concludes, "Dr. Fuhrman is foremost in this new generation of medical leaders. The information he provides in this volume is clear and practical and of vital interest to patients and doctors alike. I am grateful to Dr. Fuhrman for assembling this remarkable work, and recommend it to you wholeheartedly." Dr. Andrew Nicholson, MD, Director of Preventive Medicine, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, says "Dr. Fuhrman's powerful and practical guidelines apply for conditions ranging from the common cold to serious heart problems. This program provides an alternative to the costly and all-too-common side effects of surgery and drugs."

Dr. James Craner, MD, says, "This is neither alternative medicine nor conservative medicine, but rather progressive medicine. Dr. Fuhrman's approach offers individuals suffering from chronic diseases the only real chance for a meaningful cure. I have been fortunate to observe many of these outcomes firsthand and can testify to the power of this approach for certain diseases."

Dr. Dan Jeret, MD, says, "If you are lucky, you will read Dr. Fuhrman's book before you have subjected yourself to medications and medical procedures. This book is for those who want to take charge over their health and well-being, and for those who want to embark on a journey toward a more satisfying life." I could include several other recommendations from other physicians, which are included in this book.

I suggest you read the book before you slander Dr. Fuhrman. Ralphyde 16:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice story, but it does not make such claims scientific and infact these assertions have been scientifically discredited. It's new age medicine bullshit. I went to medical school and I can tell you something that shouldn't even require a higher education, just common sense; Fasting is unhealthy and dangerous (and lethal) and not something to toy around with. Nice story, though.

On a final note since I'm not sure if you're even getting my point when it comes to citing doctors is that theres only afew million of us and it is not within scrupulous practice to write books making scientific medical claims when you are not a scientists and have no tangible evidence to support your medical theory. He's just a doctor, the person who wrote his foreward is just a doctor. They know what they have learned from higher sources and practice what they know unless they decide to sign a lucrative book contract and begin making shit up. Basically what I am saying is if you want me or anybody like me to be O.K. with adding such dangerous misinformation to a webpage undoubtedly viewed by many people you will need conclusive scientific sources, not a book written by another run of the mill new age medicine hack. If we were to believe these 'doctors' we would believe that sunrays are actually good for us and cure diseases and that spending $700 a month at your local general nutrition store on dietary supplements will make you live longer, it's all complete nonsense unless proven otherwise and the written words of one new age doctor does not prove a single thing. 71.87.7.14 01:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Mr. Know-it-all anonymous former medical school student, who believes that everything he didn't learn about must be wrong, why don't you even cite your sources? I suggest you go to page 227 of Dr. Fuhrman's book which begins 18 pages of medical citations for his chapters, or a total of over 260 citations throughout the book from all over the world. Just go to this Amazon.com link [5] and select the Search Inside feature, then insert 'Chapter Notes' and hit Go, select the second choice and page through as many pages of Medical and Scientific references as you like. You'll find that not only is it well referenced, but if you take the time to read some of it, you'll find that it works, as I have. While you're there you can read the introduction, the table of contents, and the back cover. You might even learn something. Ralphyde 04:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Current medical science suggests that the assertion made from that book in this article is false, that is all that is relevant. To clarify my point try finding any doctor in a developed nation that will recommend that you water fast for 10 days at all, even if you just ask them if that's ok let alone whether or not they will ask you to for health benefits. You wont find a single one that isn't in danger of losing his license. I know I'm right, common sense knows I'm right and before too long a certified expert on the subject will come here to clear this up, whether it be a colleague of mine or not.71.87.7.14 05:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you even bother to follow that link and read the 18 pages of references, or the intro, or any of the strong recommendations by developed nation physicians. It's useless to argue with a young anonymous know-it-all who says, "I know I'm right..." when he obviously knows nothing about the subject at hand. Ralphyde 16:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I know I'm right, common sense knows I'm right and before too long a certified expert on the subject will come here to clear this up, whether it be a colleague of mine or not.

Only someone from a proto-scientific discipline (at best) such as medicine would use common sense to back up his (or her) claims. The information regarding fasting provided on this page might be wrong, but the attitude this comment conveys is at least as unscientific. Doctors portray themselves as scientists when in fact the vast majority don't know what science is even if it hit them in the face. The only thing that distinguishes them from "quacks" is that they do use scientific information somewhere down the line, but this science is usually "made" by someone else and comes from real scientific disciplines such as Chemistry, Physics and some branches of Applied Mathematics. Apart from that they are as much junk as the alternatives they criticize. 'Science does not rely on authority so your certified expert on the subject isn't actually worth anithing "per se". It depends on what he says and how he corroborates it. So far you have presented no proof corroborating your claims.

The subject remains controversial and not fully decided yet so place references regarding both angles. Common sense in never an argument in science. Ever. --89.180.106.50 00:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The talk page is meant to discuss improvements to the page itself. Please suggest improvements or changes to the page and cease using it as a forum for discussion. WLU 15:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. WP:Talk page states, "Article talk pages are provided for discussion of the content of articles and the views of reliable published sources. They should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views." (Boldface in original). MishaPan 15:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I would have to disagree with Ralphyde here. The assertions made in medical fasting are unscientific and unproven. For example, the increased insulin sensitivity is commonly attributed to moderate dietary restriction, which seems to have numerous health benefits in the long run. This however has absolutely nothing to do with fasting. Fasting, while if done with care and a sense of self-preservation, is not immediately dangerous but can become so in a very short span of time. I would greatly appreciate it if content was not added to wikipedia articles without FREELY AVAILABLE VERIFIABLE SOURCES. This is not the case in many of the claims in the section. The concept of "detoxification" is in itself questionable in this context, as many of the mechanisms the liver uses for the conjugation reactions needed in getting rid or unwanted foreign substances (through renal function) require generous amounts of ATP. And BTW: if common sense (assertions based on common knowledge and in this case professional expertise) is not a good argument here, I find a cute little story about some guy's colon a bit hard to swallow. The book he is referencing is indeed making wild claims that are based on little more than educated guesses. The references provided cannot be verified. Using my sources (MEDLINE and my array of medical textbooks) I could not find a single shred of evidence for the long-term health benefits of habituous fasting. In fact, I've found quite a lot of nastyness it can lead to... like muscle atrophy, mental retardation in kids and bad breath. [Sources used: MEDLINE, Boron: Medical Physiology, Alberts et Al: Molecular biology of the Cell]. Get over it.

Have a look at [6]. As to Fuhrman, see the references to Chapter 9 (A Chapter for Physicians and for Readers Who Want More Technical Information). Most of them can be found in Medline.

Fasting is academically recognized in Japan, Korea (South), Germany and post-Soviet countries. Scientific infrastructure (medical societies, congresses, journals, clinical monographies) exists there. German physicians, f.ex., can learn that modality within the subspecialty "Naturheilverfahren". Cfr. [7]. One can foresee a slow comeback of fasting in the U.S. via the experimental gerontology (influence of caloric restriction on longevity). Creating the international infrastructure would involve costs, and no commercially-interested sponsoring is to be expected. 213.155.169.65 18:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Critical Note: Please do not use such vulgar language. You went to medical school? Which one? Do you have a reference I can verify! Actually just go to the Wikipedia page on Calorie Restriction to see that fasting is the most SCIENTIFIC method to improve health and extend life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JosephCampisi (talk • contribs) 19:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC) Sex is cool

So, if the Calorie restriction article proves that fasting is valid... why are they separate concepts and articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.186.78 (talk) 00:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with most of what Ralphyde has written. I have read the book on fasting reffered to above and I have done two water fasts already (each for about 12 days). My main reason for doing this is to rid myself of bad eating habits that slowly creep in over the years. Certainly Dr. Furhman is promoting his opinions as to the benefits of fasting, but on the whole I think he makes a very good argument. The precise figures that are quoted in his book might not hold up on closer scrutiny, but I think he has tapped into a quite valuable alternative for the medicated populations. Personally, I have found it difficult to restrict something that I get used to (diets don't work for me in the long run), so for me complete abstenence from food is easier. I found the description of what happens when you fast is accurately described in the book. According to the book, the idea behind water fasting is to reach a point when your body runs out of glucose, after which ketones are used as a source of fuel (much needed to keep your brain working). At this point (after about three days) your body goes into so-called "starvation mode" where it preserves as much as possible vital tissue and uses none-vital tissue for energy. Apparently when your body is on glucose energy and there is a dip it its availability, the metabolisation of muscle becomes the source of much glucose. This is not a good thing if it occurs for a prolonged period. It seems for this reason that you will starve to death drinking fruit juice at a very much faster rate than drinking only water. I have found fasts to be quite rejuvinating, and they certainly help you change your eating habits (at least for a year in my case) because one seems not to have cravings for so-called junk food (I'm normally quite a chocaholic). Dr. Furhman does caution that you should keep an eye on your levels of Pottasiun and Sodium if you want to do a fast for longer than 14 days. I asked my gp and several others about fasting, and they gave me the honest answer that they didnt know anything about it - though they didnt caution me against it either. Many people find it quite odd to stop eating as we are not programmed for it, perhaps this is why there is so much opposition against it. Wasn't it once "scientifically proven" that anti-dipressant worked?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.58.253.57 (talk) 14:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC) 

This article contains a pletora of factual errors, taken from some obscure literature or Internet. I would suggest an expert on metabolism to see over it and rerwrite some portions. For me as a doctor, this article is a horror story. jmak (talk) 08:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You are simply not going to find any impressive sources on fasting for one simple reason, and that is there isn't a lot of money in fasting. Who is going to do a million dollar study on something anyone can do on his own for free? There is at least one fasting clinic in the US, but once you learn how you don't need a clinic anymore. Plus, fasting clinics are in direct competition with mainstream medicine. Whenever any one alternative clinic of any kind gets too big or gains too much credibility, lawyers crawl out of the woodwork to sue them should one person on treatment die even though the person was already barely clinging to life. The medical industry is 1/6th the US economy and the single biggest lobbying group, which means the government isn't going to pay for studies that offer competition to mainstream medicine. If they did do a study on fasting it would be to disprove its effectiveness. What you will find is a few dedicated doctors who actually want to help people. The best and most credible sources on fasting will be books by medical doctors and Dr. Fuhrman will be among the best. Plus, fasting isn't that complicated. Do you need a PHD to show you how to exercise? A football coach will know a lot more about that than the PHD. Ralph7770 (talk) 22:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The notion that one should not fast periodically (like once a month or a couple of times a year) is akin to denying evolutionary theory, and supporting the teaching of creationism in schools. It is well known that wild carnivores fast all the time, bears do it annually, and to suppose that mammals have NOT evolved in order to take advantage of this normal state of existence is totally ludicrous. SystemBuilder (talk) 21:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I accept evolution 100%, I do not accept quackery. Benefits from fasting lacks support or sources. Nice comparison though </saracasm>. Sincerally, C6541 (T↔C) at 20:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Fasting for Detox

Detox is not supported by any clinical trials. I recommend changing the detox line to "It is believed by some ..." As opposed to stating that "Fasting can be used for detox". No one is even sure that Detoxification is anything more than a fad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.66.160 (talk) 20:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. In his book, Fasting and Eating For Health: A Medical Doctor's Program for Conquering Disease, Joel Fuhrman, MD states on page 10: "The powerful detoxifying effects of the fast cannot be obtained by following a restricted or supplemental diet. Only when there is total abstinence from all calories do we observe waste products being heavily excreted from the breath, the tongue, the urine, and the skin. Plus, the fast does not merely detoxify, it also breaks down superflous tissue - fat, abnormal cells, atheromatous plaque, and tumors - and releases diseased tissues and their cellular products into the circulation for elimination. This kind of dramatic detoxification cannot occur with supplemented eating plans. Toxic or unwanted materials circulate in our bloodstream and lymphatic tissues and are deposited in and released from our fat stores and other tissues. An important element of detoxification is mobilizing the toxins from their storage sites. This occurs best and most efficiently during total fasting."

Later, on page 19, in a section called "Detoxification and Improvement in Organ Function Occur Simultaneously," he states, "Nothing is more fascinating than watching toxins being rapidly discharged from the system while a person fasts. In fact, fasting has been employed to treat chemical poisoning by people who have recognized the powerful effect it has on accelerating the discharge of internal noxious wastes. One such enlightening use of fasting was the subject of an article in the American Journal of Industrial Medicine in 1984 entitled "A Trial of Fasting Cure for PCB Poisoned Patients of Taiwan." The study involved patients who had ingested rice oil contaminated with PCBs. After a seven to ten-day fast, dramatic relief was noted and improvements and improvement in symptoms was reported by all patients."

Dr. Fuhrman runs a supervised fasting clinic in New Jersey and uses only pure water fasts. His book has many more references to detoxification and is very well referenced. I suggest you go to page 227 of Dr. Fuhrman's book which begins 18 pages of medical citations for his chapters, or a total of over 260 citations throughout the book from all over the world. Just go to this Amazon.com link [8] and select the Search Inside feature, then insert 'Chapter Notes' and hit Go, select the second choice and page through as many pages of Medical and Scientific references as you like. You'll find that it is very well referenced.

And as 213.155.169.65 said above, "Have a look at [9]. As to Fuhrman, see the references to Chapter 9 (A Chapter for Physicians and for Readers Who Want More Technical Information). Most of them can be found in Medline." And further: "Fasting is academically recognized in Japan, Korea (South), Germany and post-Soviet countries. Scientific infrastructure (medical societies, congresses, journals, clinical monographies) exists there. German physicians, f.ex., can learn that modality within the subspecialty "Naturheilverfahren". Cfr. [10]. One can foresee a slow comeback of fasting in the U.S. via the experimental gerontology (influence of caloric restriction on longevity). Creating the international infrastructure would involve costs, and no commercially-interested sponsoring is to be expected. 213.155.169.65 18:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC) Ralphyde (talk) 22:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

BELIEVE this is in the wrong place or is illogical, how does a drug get in your system when fasting?

I removed this un-encyclopedic comment from the "cons" of fasting. If you're curious about the answer, read the reference, or have faith in this simplified explanation : when fasting, your glucose levels plummet and the liver starts a process to generate some replacement (cetonic bodies ?) because the nervous system absotely needs it. Using these as "fuel" generates toxic elements like acetone... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephan Leclercq (talk • contribs) 15:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm no expert but from what I've read online it is claimed that some toxins and by-products of drug metabolism which are fat soluble are stored in fat cells in order to prevent overloading the liver. I have no way of knowing whether it is true or not, and have no (reliable) sources. If it is true, it makes sense that they would be released during a fast when the fat is used up (and when the liver is doing less work because of the fast so is able to deal with it better). Does anyone have any reliable sources regarding this? 81.141.174.73 (talk) 23:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Starvation mode

Does this phenomenon actually exist? I.e., will your body really devour muscle before fat? I think we need to source this aspect of the article more thoroughly. Starvation mode (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure does exist and it's entirely possible to starve to death while still obese. It usually occurs during an extended, very restricted diet of cooked or preserved foods which are devoid of food enzymes contained only in raw foods. The classic example of a starvation diet consists of only cooked, lean rabbit or deer meat for weeks. It can also occur by sneaking in small snacks of low or negative nutrition food like twinkies during a long water fast. It's marked by intense hunger. The more intense the hunger, the faster the body is losing good tissue from muscle and internal organs instead of fat, toxins and waste. Ralph7770 (talk) 13:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Fasting does not remove so called "toxins fat and waste" and not remove good tissue. That hunger is from malnutrition. Does not matter what way you starve yourself, you are going to loss body tissue. Quacks. Sincerally, C6541 (T↔C) at 20:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

April cleanup

I removed a lot of unverified stuff from medical fasting and physiological effects of fasting. A lot of it just lacked citations altogether. Neither Joel Fuhrman nor Shelton are verifiable sources for a lot of the claims made in both sections. Their books are self-published, and such a source is unsuitable to make claims about "studies were made that fasting helps with cancer" as per WP:VERIFY. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, and their books do not qualify. Please do not revert my changes without discussing it here first. FironDraak (talk) 10:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:VERIFY doesn't automatically exclude self-published works. "The Miricle of Fasting" by Paul and Patricia Bragg is probably the best selling book on fasting, and it's self-published as well. Paul Bragg did introduce a 15 year old Jack Lalanne to nutrition. Should we exclude this source as well? Ralph7770 (talk) 13:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Fuhrman's book is not self-published, and is thoroughly referenced. In fact it is well recommended by other physicians. Dr. Fuhrman "is a board-certified family physician in private practice in Belle Mead, New Jersey, who specializes in preventing and reversing disease through nutritional methods. He is an active staff member of Hunterdon Medical Center and provides nutritionally oriented medical care to patients as well as nutritional education to other physicians."

The Foreward to his book is written by Neal D. Barnard, MD, President, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. He concludes, "Dr. Fuhrman is foremost in this new generation of medical leaders. The information he provides in this volume is clear and practical and of vital interest to patients and doctors alike. I am grateful to Dr. Fuhrman for assembling this remarkable work, and recommend it to you wholeheartedly." Dr. Andrew Nicholson, MD, Director of Preventive Medicine, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, says "Dr. Fuhrman's powerful and practical guidelines apply for conditions ranging from the common cold to serious heart problems. This program provides an alternative to the costly and all-too-common side effects of surgery and drugs."

Dr. James Craner, MD, says, "This is neither alternative medicine nor conservative medicine, but rather progressive medicine. Dr. Fuhrman's approach offers individuals suffering from chronic diseases the only real chance for a meaningful cure. I have been fortunate to observe many of these outcomes firsthand and can testify to the power of this approach for certain diseases."

Dr. Dan Jeret, MD, says, "If you are lucky, you will read Dr. Fuhrman's book before you have subjected yourself to medications and medical procedures. This book is for those who want to take charge over their health and well-being, and for those who want to embark on a journey toward a more satisfying life." I could include several other recommendations from other physicians, which are included in this book.

You'll also find that it is well referenced. I suggest you go to page 227 of Dr. Fuhrman's book which begins 18 pages of medical citations for his chapters, or a total of over 260 citations throughout the book from all over the world. Just go to this Amazon.com link [11] and select the Search Inside feature, then insert 'Chapter Notes' and hit Go, select the second choice and page through as many pages of Medical and Scientific references as you like. You'll find that not only is it well referenced, but if you take the time to read some of it, you'll find that it works, as I have. While you're there you can read the introduction, the table of contents, and the back cover.

And, as user 213.155.169.65 said above:

"Have a look at [12]. As to Fuhrman, see the references to Chapter 9 (A Chapter for Physicians and for Readers Who Want More Technical Information). Most of them can be found in Medline.

"Fasting is academically recognized in Japan, Korea (South), Germany and post-Soviet countries. Scientific infrastructure (medical societies, congresses, journals, clinical monographies) exists there. German physicians, f.ex., can learn that modality within the subspecialty "Naturheilverfahren". Cfr. [13]. One can foresee a slow comeback of fasting in the U.S. via the experimental gerontology (influence of caloric restriction on longevity). Creating the international infrastructure would involve costs, and no commercially-interested sponsoring is to be expected. 213.155.169.65 18:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)"

Ralphyde (talk) 17:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Lack of references in "Religious fasting" sections

There are many specific facts delivered in the religious and denominational subsections. Nothing, as of right now, is referenced. (I'm talking about inline citations, not something someone has to go hunting for among "External links".) I realize the individual subsection "unreferenced" tags create a lot of ugly banners in the article, but I think this is the best way to make a practical project out of getting some verifiability in the article... As each religion or denomination is reliably sourced, we can remove that subsection's tag. --Ds13 (talk) 05:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge

There's a lot of crossover between this page and Water fasting; the latter should probably be merged into this one. LSD (talk) 04:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Since there's been no objection, I've gone ahead and done it. LSD (talk)

• Actually given the state of this article, which is not great, it may be good to have a dedicated water fasting specific page started. If you remove the redirect, I'll add some stuff to it or at least kick off the discussion page. Mindsite (talk) 01:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Joel Fuhrman?

The medical fasting section is basically an infomerical for this guy (who is he?). Not only does it fail to qualify that the ideas presented are completely unscientific and unsubstantiated, but virtually ever single cite is from this one guy's book.

Either provide SOME other evidence, or lose the offending paragraphs (preferably the latter), but as it stands it's pretty embarassing.LSD (talk) 11:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Who is Joel Fuhrman? From Amazon.com's Editorial reviews:

Editorial Reviews

Review

"Dr. Fuhrman's powerful and practical guidelines apply for conditions ranging from the common cold to serious heart problems. This program provides an alternative to the costly and all-to-common side effects of sugery and drugs."--Andrew Nicholson, M.D., Director of Preventive Medicine, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine

"By individually tailoring nutrition plans based on a case-by-case basis, Fuhrman has treated hundreds of patients with rheumatoid arthritis successfully."--Vegetarian Times

"This is where the future of medicine should be heading."--Ronald Cridland, M.D.

"This is neither alternative medicine nor conservative medicine, but rather progressive medicine. Dr. Fuhrman's approach offers individuals suffering from [chronic] diseases the only real chance for a meaningful cure. I have been fortunate to observe many of these outcomes firsthand and can testify to the power of this approach for certain diseases."--James Craner, M.D., M.P.H.

"Dr. Fuhrman's book is revolutionary. It shows clearly and unmistakably the way to recover health, and could change the prevailing way of treating disease."--Theodore Coumentakis, M.D.

"If you are lucky, you will read Dr. Furhman's book before you have subjected yourself to medications and medical procedures. This book is for those who want to take charge over their health and well-being, and for those who want to embark on a journey toward a more satisfying life."--Don Jeret, M.D.

"I know that every health seeker in America will want to read this book. It provides a working knowledge of vital information that is currently known to relatively few people. Share it with those you love."--John Pilla, M.D.

Ralphyde (talk) 17:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Amazon.com is not a reputable source, neither is the dust cover of his book. Again, you're trying to turn this into an informercial for this relatively unknown individual's controversial theories. Maybe he's a genius, maybe he's an idiot, but it isn't accepted opinion and hence it shouldn't be in an encyclopedia. LSD (talk) 17:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

This issue was thoroughly discussed and resolved back in April, 2008. Let's not do it again. Ralphyde (talk) 03:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Then it needs to be revisted until somebody either provides EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE to support Dr. Fuhrman's claims or else it should be removed. How is that an unreasonable request? Link to one scientific study supporting any of this bullshit. - Jeff —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.198.36.244 (talk) 06:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Whoever keeps re-posting that crap about Dr. Fuhrman, using his book as a source, needs to support any claim they make with an unbiased source and empirical evidence. - Jeff —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.198.36.244 (talk) 07:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This issue was thoroughly discussed and resolved back in April, 2008. Let's not do it again. Dr.Fuhrman's book has 18 pages of citations from all over the world. This was all gone over before. Your extreme bias is showing. I suggest you go to page 227 of Dr. Fuhrman's book which begins 18 pages of medical citations for his chapters, or a total of over 260 citations throughout the book from all over the world. Just go to this Amazon.com link [14] and select the Search Inside feature, then insert 'Chapter Notes' and hit Go, select the second choice and page through as many pages of Medical and Scientific references as you like. You'll find that not only is it well referenced, but if you take the time to read some of it, you'll find that it works, as I have. While you're there you can read the introduction, the table of contents, and the back cover. Ralphyde (talk) 19:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, and back in April it would appear that the consensus was that Joel Furhman is not a reliable nor notable source. As far as I can see, you are the only person on this page who agrees with keeping the Joel references. The only "extreme bias" apparent here is yours.LSD (talk) 04:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

To correct the above statement by LSD, the results of the AfD on Dr. Fuhrman in April were seven voting to KEEP, and only one DELETE. The final statement was: "The result was Keep. Rjd0060 (talk) 03:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)" This can be easily verified. Ralphyde (talk) 04:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It is irrelevant detail that borderlines on Non-Notable for the main article (and this is a overview!), that is subjective, and fails WP:NPOV. I would advise strongly against adding it back in. We don't need to hear you "testimonials" on talk page that it "works", wikipedia is a encyclopedia, not a random collection of testimonials, subjective bias, and whatnot. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Back in April, 2008, Dr. Joel Fuhrman's page was marked for deletion by an anti-fasting POV editor. After the discussion, the result was KEEP. I don't know why there are so many of these anti-fasting editors around unless they work for drug companies that feel that healing by natural methods is a threat to their bottom line. But people who have been healed by pure water fasting know that the healing system we all have inside of us has the ability to fight off disease if we only give it a chance. And as Dr. Fuhrman has pointed out, fasting is Nature's way of healing, which has been done from time immemorial. He has also been the leading practicing physician to write a modern and thoroughly researched book about fasting, complete with 18 pages of medical citations from all over the world. There had also been citations in the article by Herbert Shelton and Paul Bragg, earlier fasting experts, but they were also removed by various POV editors. The western medical establishment has been taken over by the advocates of drugs and surgery (follow the money) and fasting has been marginalized, but is still done by those who can find the knowledge. You can look here [15] to see the worldwide scope of fasting for healing, and you can read this other doctor's experience of a 41 day fast to heal him of ulcerative colitis which had nearly killed him. [16] I don't understand the motivations of those who want to delete this well documented information. Ralphyde (talk) 21:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Consensus was NOT reached in April, one person said the source for these claims was not reliable, two others, yourself included, said it was and should stay, and no one else contributed to the discussion. That is not consensus. Even if there was a huge support for this man's work being included in April, today is January of 2009, what was or was not consensus then does not matter now, multiple editors raised the issue now, so you can't simply revert edits with the statement that it was decided in April. Two saying keep and one saying remove the info from this article in April hardly means it can never be discussed with a different result in the future. Additionally, the fact that Dr. Fuhrman's article was kept means he is notable; there is a huge difference between him being notable and his work being used to source two paragraphs in the general fasting article. Several editors (myself included, and no I don't work for a drug company either :-) ) do not believe his work is notable enough by Wikipedia standards for inclusion in this article. It looks like consensus is in favor of keeping this material out of this article, so you should abide by that decision just like every other editor has to when an edit they disagree with reaches consensus. Theseeker4 (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

To correct the above statement by Theseeker4, the results of the AfD on Dr. Fuhrman in April were seven voting to KEEP, and only one DELETE. The final statement was: "The result was Keep. Rjd0060 (talk) 03:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)" This can be easily verified. Ralphyde (talk) 04:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Please read my statement above. I was discussing the inclusion of this information on THIS article, which you above said was discussed and settled in April, not the notability of Fuhrman's page. No one here I can see is arguing for his page to be deleted; the existance of his page is a non-issue for this article. No matter how notable he is, this information does not belong here. It is POV pushing and promotional, regardless of whether you believe it is "the truth" or you believe those opposing you have no knowledge of the subject in question. Theseeker4 (talk) 12:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• 1. No one is proposing deleting the man's page, we just don't want it spilling over onto this one. Although, since you mention it, the Joel Fuhrman page seems like an excellent place to present the man's theories. I'll be honest, I've never heard of the guy before so I can't really comment on whether or not he's notable enough to have his own page, but if you really believe (as you seem to) that this man is in possession of revolutionary medical understanding, then his article would seem like a more sensible place to prove it -- with the obvious caveat that you must tolerate criticism of the man as well!
• 2. There's no conspiracy going on here, none of us work for drug comapnies (I only wish!). But the very fact that you're leveling that charge only shows how much you're missing the point. 'Cause if there really were a grand conspiracy to cover up the "secrets of fasting", then by definition, those "secrets" would not be an appropriate subject matter for Wikipedia. Wikipedia deals in the objective and the verifiable. Things that are "suppressed" or "covered up," or otherwise only known to a select elite, regardless of whether or not they are true, do not belong here. Everybody thinks they know the "truth". If we didn't believe what we believe, we wouldn't believe it. But Wikipedia doesn't deal in "truth", it deals in objective evidence; and right or wrong, junk science or "suppressed" "truth", Joel Fuhrman's fasting theories are not accepted.
• 3. If none of the above makes sense to you, at the very least please try to understand that continuing this fight is not worth the effort. I get that you're passionate, I get that you care, I get that you think you're right. But I don't care, or rather I should say Wikipedia doesn't care. This just isn't about right or wrong. Maybe some day Joel Fuhrman will be vindicated as the greatest medical mind since Hippocrates. Regardless, removing his theories from this page will still have been the right decision. Because this isn't about right or wrong.

...whew. ;) LSD (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I have a copy of Fuhrman's book. Personally I think some of what is recounted in the book is obviously true, and other stuff seems unsupported at best. Fuhrman would apparently be someone like (say) Atkins: he's a doctor, has written books, treats patients, etc., but I wouldn't think of either as authoritative on their subjects. Instead of going back and forth about this, why not just add the journal articles that Fuhrman references? If they are from reputable journals, that ought to cover it in terms of Wikipedia rules. Mkcmkc (talk) 01:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

In response to Ukexpat on my talk page, you asked me not to put the Fuhrman material back on the Fasting page. Yet this material has been there for years, and has been recognized as authoritative, and the author recognized as notable in an AfD discussion with a verdict of KEEP (7-1), as noted above. It is editors like LSD and others, usually anonymous, with a bias against the healing benefits of fasting, for whatever reason, who periodically delete it, with no citations for their anti-fasting bias, as in last April, and August. When I see that, I have reverted it, as it is cited, and verifiable. And I have discussed it ad nauseum on the Talk page. Obviously, I think it should stay. I get very tired of people who know nothing about a subject on Wikipedia deleting cited references by authoritative sources because they have a different opinion. Other fasting sources like Shelton and Bragg, previously used in citations by other editors, have already been deleted. Ralphyde (talk) 04:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you're mistaking me for someone else. I have not previously commented on this subject. Mkcmkc (talk) 06:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was addressing Ukexpat, not you.

On page 1 of Fuhrman's book he says,"Theraputic fasting accelerates the healing process and allows the body to recover from serious disease in a dramatically short period of time. In my practice I have seen fasting eliminate lupus and arthritis, remove chronic skin conditions such as psoriasis and eczema, heal the digestive tract in patients with ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease, and quickly eliminate cardiovascular diseases such as high blood pressure and angina. In these cases the recoveries were permanent: fasting enables longtime disease sufferers to unchain themselves from their multiple toxic drugs and even eliminate the need for surgery, which was recommended to some of them as their only solution.

"As a means for recovery from disease, fasting has hit the front pages of major medical publications due to its recognized effectiveness in well-controlled scientific studies. Although fasting has been around as a therapeutic approach for thousands of years, only now (written in 1995 and still in print and available) is the medical profession studying the broad-reaching reparative properties of the fast. Even with this progress, most of the medical community and the general public are still unaware that the medically supervised fast is the safest and most effective treatment for many dangerous but common illnesses.

"The health of our nation is not improving, in fact, we are getting sicker. Changes are developing in health care, and the public is more aware that a problem exists. Our economy is weighed down by an expensive and largely ineffective medical system that relies on expensive tests, treatments, and last-minute heroics to attempt to combat the harmful effects of a nation poisoning itself with a rich, disease-causing diet.

"While high-tech methods such as new drugs and surgical techniques (angioplasty and bypass surgery, for example) aim to reduce symptoms, they do not address the underlying cause of the disease, and people are getting sicker and sicker... This rich diet (of high-fat, high-protein, highly refined foods) harms our bodies and lays the groundwork for chronic degenerative disease. Fasting in conjunction with optimal nutrition after and before the fast offers the ability to undo the damage done to the body by the rich diets of modern societies."

Dr. Fuhrman goes on to buttress his points with 18 pages of over 260 medical citations, and chapters on the various diseases which are cured by fasting, as well as "A chapter for Physicians and for Readers Who Want More Technical Information." His book is highly recommended by several physicians who have seen his results, and by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. He is talking about pure water fasts, not juice or other kinds of fasts.

Therefore, unless you have citations which refute the passages that reference Dr. Fuhrman's book, please don't just delete them. His book is the most authoratative in the field, and is well respected in the fasting community. And this topic is about Fasting.

For further information about therapeutic fasting, You can look here [17] to see the worldwide scope of fasting for healing, and you can read this other doctor's experience of a 41 day fast to heal him of ulcerative colitis which had nearly killed him. [18] Ralphyde (talk) 07:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, you're missing the point. It doesn't matter whether or not Joel is right. What matters is that it is not the accepted opinion in the field, and no amount of quotes from his book is going to change that. Speaking of which, there's really no point in referencing Joel Fuhrman to defend Joel Furhman. I think we all assume that the guy supports himself. LSD (talk) 19:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The question is (which mkcmkc seems to overlook): what the heck does a specific person's own "diet rules" have to do with a generic and overarching overview of Medical fasting beyond POV pushing/promotion (this isn't the main page!!)? answer: NONE. Wikipedia is a encyclopedia, understand what a encyclopedia is, and how it works, before readding in material irrelevant to other articles. This is not the page, or talk page, for Fuhrman, or his book, or anything like that. Simply because it is "true" doesn't mean it should be on wikipedia. This has nothing to do with "refuting what it is in the book". This has everything to do with "what the heck does this have to do with relevancy, and undue weight in a overview section"?! The statement that "book is the most authoritative on the field" is subjective, and not cited, please do so before adding in, if otherwise uncited, POV/promotional statements. We don't need to see links to promotional testimony, or for that matter, testimony at all, that is an advertisement technique, and wikipedia is not a infomercial (yes, I learned what advertising techniques were in school). This has to do with relevancy, notability, neutrality, and if it is encyclopedic. We don't need to hear rubbish on specific examples of "oh the fasting works, its really authoritative" Original Research/promotion. (note the italics, I'm saying statements/citations on saying fasting as a whole works would not fail promotional, however, undue weight given to a specific method, two paragraphs of it, which is partially based on promotion, does fail advert policies.)ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 07:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe you misread. My only suggestion is that it might be useful to add the journal citations from the book directly. Mkcmkc (talk) 01:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The topic is Fasting. Would you be happier if it were in a separate section heading like 'Therapeutic Fasting' But he is a medical doctor and he is using fasting for healing. Ralphyde (talk) 08:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

What would make me happier is if you left the controversial stuff for articles dealing with the controvsersy. This page isn't supposed to be a forum for publisizing underreported theories; it's en encycolpedia, not a bulletin board. And devoting paragraph after paragraph to a guy who's theories are, to put it mildly, somewhat divergent with mainstream thinking on the subject is not compatible with an encypolpedic agenda. Perhaps one sentence describing alternative theories of fasting would be in order, maybe even a link to an article on the subject. But anything more is ridiculous.

Like the man himself said (taken from your excerpts above): "most of the medical community and the general public are still unaware that the medically supervised fast is the safest and most effective treatment for many dangerous but common illnesses (sic)". In other words most doctors and most people don't believe it, and presenting something which most people don't believe as if it were the "truth" is the definition of NPOV! LSD (talk) 19:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, what makes it such that he deserves 2 paragraphs to himself in a section on fasting in general when said overview section is only about 4 paragraphs long (yes, there is 6 or 7, but the last few are really short)? It's undue weight. Now, if it was worded such as: Research by proponents of fasting, such as _______________,____________________,_______________ shows that fasting ____________________. like the rest of the section, it wouldn't be undue weight and promotion of one person's thesis. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 14:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Therapeutic Fasting

I've just discovered a book online by the famous author Upton Sinclair, called The Fasting Cure written in 1911, and documenting his return to "perfect health" through fasting. He had written over thirty books by this time, and was quite famous.

This has inspired me to use this as part of a new section called 'Therapeutic Fasting' describing this aspect of fasting and including the Fuhrman references, which seem to raise objections in the 'Medical Fasting' section.

In his preface, he wrote, "In the Cosmopolitan Magazine for May, 1910, and in the Contemporary Review (London) for April, 1910 I published an article dealing with my experiences in fasting. I have written a great many magazine articles, but never one which attracted so much attention as this. The first day the magazine was on the news-stands, I received a telegram from a man in Washington who had begun to fast and wanted some advice; and thereafter I received ten or twenty letters a day from people who had questions to ask or experiences to narrate. At the date of writing eight months have passed, and the flood has not yet stopped. The editors of the Cosmopolitan also tell me that they have never received so many letters about an article in their experience. Still more significant was the number of reports which began to appear in the news columns of papers all over the country, telling of people who were fasting. From various sources I have received about fifty such clippings, and few but reported benefit to the faster."

"As a consequence of this interest, I was asked by the Cosmopolitan to write another article, which appeared in the issue of February, 1911. The present volume is made up from these two articles, with the addition of some notes and comments, and some portions of articles contributed to the Physical Culture magazine, of the editorial staff of which I am a member."

And he goes on to say, "I do not pretend to be the discoverer of the fasting cure. The subject was discussed by Dr. E.H. Dewey in books which were published thirty or forty years ago" and he goes on to name several books he read, Fasting for the Cure of Disease, by Dr.L.B.Hazzard; Perfect Health, by C.C.Haskell; Fasting, Hydrotherapy and Exercise by Benarr Macfadden; Fasting, Vitality, and Nutrition by Hereward Carrington, and more.

And he goes on to say, "This is not an introduction to a new device in patent medicine advertising. I have nothing to sell, and no process patented. It is simply that for ten years I have been studying the ill health of myself and of the men and women around me. And I have found the cause and the remedy. I have not only found good health, but perfect health; I have found a new state of being, a potentiality of life; a sense of lightness and cleanness and joyfulness, such as I did not know could exist in the human body..."

And he later says something very similar to what Dr. Fuhrman said, on page 14, "The fast is Nature's remedy for all diseases and there are few exceptions to the rule."

In a later section, called 'Fasting and the Doctors,' he complains about the fairly consistently negative attitude of physicians, as revealed in the correspondence he received, some of it quite comical, which reminds me of some of the nay-sayers on this website a century later, in spite of continuing success in healing many diseases, as documented by such men as Dr. Fuhrman.

He says, "Of course I realize what a difficult matter it is for a medical man to face these facts about the fast. Sometimes it seems to me that we have no right to expect their help at all, and that we never will receive it. For we are asking them to destroy themselves, economically speaking." Still true, a century later.

There's much more, and the whole book can be read here, [19] as it's in the public domain since 1922

His fasting method is similar to Dr. Fuhrman's, just water, no calories, for twelve days or so. He lived to be 90 in good health.

So please bear with me while I start the section on 'Therapeutic Fasting.' I will start it with the Fuhrman material, and gradually add some additional historical and geographical aspects as I can find them. Therapeutic fasting is widespread all over the world, though mostly ignored by western doctors. Ralphyde (talk) 08:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You are missing the entire point of the discussion above. This is not a question of whether it works, whether there are multiple doctors who support it, or whether it is much more prevelant in non-western nations. The point is that in a general article on fasting, one that covers all aspects of the practice for religious, personal, medical and all other reasons, there should NOT be multiple paragraphs on this doctor's particular method, whether you can find other sources that agree with him or not. If you can create an article about therapeutic fasting and can source it to multiple sources (meaning it isn't just a promotional article of Fhurman's method) I do not think many people here would object to it at all. It does not, however, deserve multiple paragraphs here, in this article, regardless of what sources you find. Theseeker4 (talk) 12:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. But, Ralphyde, please keep in mind that even a seperate article on "therapeutic fasting" would still have to be NPOV. Meaning it couldn't just be a summary of Joel and his supporter's ideas, but would have to include all the criticism of their theories and methologies. It would also, obviously, have to point out the fact that these theories are rejected by the vast majority of the medical field. Wikipedia has lots of articles on controversial medical approaches, but they are identified as such; and the main fasting article (ie, this one) shouldn't include fringe ideas! LSD (talk) 17:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, a new article needs to include criticism, other people's theories, and all major contributors/studies, as that is more inclusive. Not just one person's studies. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I wasn't talking about a new article, but rather a new section in this article on Fasting, just as Medical Fasting, Religious Fasting, and Political Fasting already exist. Therapeutic fasting is certainly one of the major reasons for fasting, probably the primary one. I started such a section, but it was immediately deleted within hours by another editor, with several others joining in. So why bother? It doesn't seem to be worth the effort with so many nay-sayers around. It's just as Upton Sinclair said in his book, The Fasting Cure, above. So, maybe someone else will pick it up, if they've got the patience and nothing better to do. Ralphyde (talk) 06:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You still don't seem to get the point, but I do thank you for retiring from this issue. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 03:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel wronged, but at least this issue is finally resolved. Since you're no longer actively editing the page, I've removed the NPOV banner. LSD (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

There's still no need for a "therapeutic fasting" section, Ralphyde. Please don't start this issue again... LSD (talk) 13:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course there is such a need! Therapeutic fasting has been around throughout recorded history. As Dr. Fuhrman says on p. 16 of his excellent and well-researched book, Fasting - and Eating - for Health: A Medical Doctor's Program for Conquering Disease,[20] "Fasting has been used as a healing modality throughout recorded history. Socrates, Plato, Pythagoras, and Hippocrates, for example, all recommended fasting for various physical conditions." ...

"For more than ten thousand years fasting has been utilized to heal the sick. Hippocrates regularly prescribed fasting for numerous conditions. The famous Hippocratic Oath, familiar to every physician, admonishes us to "First do no harm," recognizing that the most important foundation of healing the sick, even today, is the remarkable recuperative power inherent in the human body. This power of self-repair is beautifully witnessed during the fast."

I agree that what is there so far can be greatly improved upon, which I once started to do, until overwhelmed and frustrated by wiki-bullies determined to keep any mention of fasting as a therapeutic modality out of Wikipedia. But the heading, at least, needs to remain, so it can be improved upon by those more knowledgable in the field, which is widespread throughout the world, though not financed by the pharmaceutical industry. So we are left with toxic drugs to deal with our symptoms of illness, which also disrupt our natural inborn healing systems, and vastly increase our health care expenses. Ralphyde (talk) 19:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Please don't force this again. It's been resolved once already, is it really necessary to start this all up again? LSD (talk) 23:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Ralph, what is the point is trying to fight it? These people are as ignorant as the Doctors and Western medical approach esthey represent. A safe, free, effective, non-palliative approach works and they don't want to know about it so they can maintain the status quo.

Exactly right. Wikipedia is a compendium of 'status quo' knowledge; when it comes to medicine, our job is to be as "ignorant" as the mainstream scientific community. The "Western medical approach" may not be perfect, but it's the best we've got. Keep in mind that for every legitimate alternative treatment out there, there are a 99 worthless ones, and the proponents of the wortheless ones are just as certain that their "approach" offers a "safe, free, effective, [and] non-palliative" alternative.

But it's not our place to find the one from among the hundred. Does that mean that some genuinely effective treatments will be left out? Does it mean that this encyclopedia will reflect the prejudices and limitations of current mainstream knowledge? Yes, and that's the way it should be.

If you want to promote "therapeutic fasting", start a website. I'm sure there are several already. But please respect the editors' consensus and refrain from further reverts to this page.

LSD (talk) 18:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I understand not wanting to have an infomercial for Joel Fuhrman under a therapeutic fasting section, but isn't there enough evidence for treatment of hypertension via water only fasting to mention it? For example this study and this study. I'd be happy to throw in a sentence, but figured I'd bring it up here since it seems to be a sensitive topic. this link is cited for the conclusion that "detox diets are not supported by the medical field", but that seems less convincing than studies or articles about particular applications of water only fasting. It would also be nice to somehow separate out the hype surrounding detox diets (and all the bogus "cure all" claims associated with specific products) and the research on water only fasting. Any more background on the edit history of this would be appreciated. Thehenster (talk) 05:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

After doing some research I think I can answer my own question with some more links skeptico blog and another bbc article with more details. Thehenster (talk) 06:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

In any case, any evidence of a medical benefit to fasting should be put in the medical section; having a seperate "therapetic" category falsely implies that "therepeutic" fasting has some sort of independent legitimacy

Absent a response by Ralphyde, I've removed the section heading again ...hopefully for the last time. LSD (talk) 22:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully, it will be for the last time, as such a section heading is certainly appropriate and warranted, even though the content is not yet as complete as it should be. Ralphyde (talk) 02:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Refimprove tag

While the article has some references, it is far from being references to the level that it needs to. That's why it has a {{refimprove}} tag, and not an {{unreferenced}} tag. Note the following problems:

• The Christianity section has subsections which are either (1) referenced by primary sources which are typically not enough (see WP:PSTS which states that Wikipedia should depend mostly on secondary sources) or (2) virtually unreferenced (i.e. Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism, Oriental Orthodox Churches, etc)
• The Hinduism section is completely unreferenced
• The Islam section has almost no references
• The Jainism section has no references
• The Judaism section has no references
• on and on.

There are more subsections that are unreferenced, compared to the sections that have references, and that's why the {{refimprove}} tag is quite appropriate. Regards, Jeff3000 (talk) 03:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Water fast?

What ever happend to water fasts... Was it not murged with this article? There is nothing on it here, nor does it have a page of its own. Also, Whatever happend to the list of types of fasts... this seems to be mainly about reasons for, and who does, fasts. There realy is little truly usefull information, I am dissapointed.210.185.17.159 (talk) 06:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Not the best images?

The two before and after photos (File:First_day.jpg and Olivia_Cohen_after_3rd_consecutive_40_day_fast.jpg, the latter is red because it's on the commons) are blurry, and don't really show anything. I think we should remove them, whether or not there is something better to take their place. Huw Powell (talk) 00:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• I uploaded higher resolutions of the before and after images. Rob (talk) 21:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Voluntary abstinence on Fridays?

Pastoral teachings since 1966 have urged voluntary fasting during Lent and voluntary abstinence on the other Fridays of the year. I don't know the exact USCCB regulations or I would change the article myself. But abstinence on the non-Lenten Fridays is not voluntary. It may be substituted by other pious practices in a way laid down in the regulations of the Bishops Conference, but these again are not voluntary, the only thing that may be voluntary is to pick a supposedly harder practice of the ones allowed. And that should be put into the article in a fitting form.--77.4.43.222 (talk) 10:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

LENT

People are forgetting how inportant fasting is to christians.I am 12 years old and need homework help, i searched fasting and all that came up is about dieting, think about how the world started, about God. think about Jesus dyeing on the cross for US!

I am 12 and i even know that so just think before you write, that is my advice.

thankyou x 2.126.221.185 (talk) 19:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

And what do you think this adds to the conversation? what was the point of posting this? Stregamama (talk) 15:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

chill out, streg, he's 12 years old and doesn't necessarily realize what needs to be in an encyclopedia and what doesn't. And he's right, it's much easier to find information on fasting for health reasons (as questionable as those reasons may be) than to find information on religious fasting practices. That goes back to the issue of lack of inline citations in the sections of the article about religious fasts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.100.7 (talk) 19:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Before and after pics

What is Wikipedia now a cheesy ad for fad dieting? Water fasting can be dangerous, especialy over long periods of time and if such images are included it would be wise to note these dangers in the article ~~Xil (talk) 12:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Fasting in Animals

Hey, I just thinking about animals like camels can go without water for days, would that be related to fasting if animals do this? McAusten (talk) 02:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

This is an article about denying oneself food when it is available, not surviving a lack of food or water. I think there is a Wikipedia page about physiological reactions to starvation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.100.7 (talk) 19:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Section on Buddhism

I would take issue with the comment "Fasting is not practiced by lay Buddhists because it is seen as a deviation from the Middle Path." This is a sweeping generalization and seems like mere conjecture on the author's part. It also suggest that monks and nuns, who do not eat after mid-day, in contrast to (typical) lay followers are deviating from the Middle Path, although it is stated earlier of this practice that "This is not considered a fast but rather a disciplined regimen aiding in meditation and good health." The Buddha did not recommend that any of his followers deviate from the Middle Path, as this Middle Path is at the very core of all he taught. There are practices traditionally undertaken by monks and nuns which might strike us today as excessively austere, but the kind of asceticism undertaken by the Buddha, which he later realized as contrary to the Middle Way, consisted of such things as holding his arm in the air for weeks on end, eating only a single grain of rice per day for a very long time, eating his own excrement, and so forth. I do not think that the austerities undertaken by the ordained Sangha should be confused with those practices.

Also, I take issue with the section which reads "Chenrezig taught her the method of Nyung Ne[15] in which one keeps the eight precepts on the first day, then refrains from both food and water on the second. Although seemingly against the Middle Way, this practice is to experience the negative karma of both oneself and all other sentient beings and, as such is seen to be of benefit. Other self-inflicted harm is discouraged." Taking the eight precepts for one day and then abstaining from food and water for another day is "self-inflicted harm"? I don't think so; the author's own biases appear to be influencing this interpretation. I also object to the suggestion that the purpose of this practice is to experience "the negative karma of both oneself and all other sentient beings". I am sure that this is one way of viewing the practice, but I am not sure that it is the most correct in terms of Buddhist doctrine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.225.120 (talk) 19:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Grammatical Error

In the article, the phrase "fat is converted into ketone" under 'Health effects' is scientifically incorrect. A correct alternative would be "fat is converted into ketone bodies" as the word 'ketone' essentially signifies a type of organic compounds and not a specific or certain compound. In this case, the fatty acids are broken down into compounds that are ketone groups known as 'ketone bodies'. ~hb2007 15:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hb2007 (talk • contribs)

Fixed, thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Water before Blood test?

Hey Guys, I just thinking that if you are allow to drink water before a blood test (even though you are required to fast for 12 hours)? McAusten (talk) 01:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on what the blood test is for, but for most things it shouldn't be a problem. Your kidneys regulates the concentration of most substances in the blood pretty closely, so when you drink a lot of water, you wind up excreting it pretty quickly, so i don't think it will skew tests for concentration of a given substance. Also, one of the more common tests for which you would need to fast beforehand is a fasting blood glucose test- allows the doctor to monitor certain aspects of your metabolism. The results for that would only be affected by foods that contain energy that your body can use and so wouldn't be affected by water.

I really don't think this belongs on a Wikipedia discussion page- there are plenty of health forums on the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.100.7 (talk) 19:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

biblical references

The Old Testament references should not be in the Christianity section, since they are relevant to both Christianity and Judaism. Perhaps this should be reorganized with a "Biblical references" section immediately followed by the sections on Christianity and Judaism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.100.7 (talk) 19:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Fasting/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Needs to cite sources and include a list of works referenced. Badbilltucker 20:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 20:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 20:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)