Religious Fasting

I can understand why a lot of people here are dead set against fasting for weight loss but what about religious fasting? I know about Muslim, Baha'i and Jewish fasting and I know the most about Baha'i fasting because I used to be a member.

Muslims and Baha'is abstain from food and drink from sunrise to sunset for a month. Muslims fast for a lunar month and Baha'is fast for a Baha'i "month" of 19 days. Today is the last day of the Baha'i fast.

Baha'is cannot fast if they are under 15, pregnant or nursing, very old (I forget the age), or sick. People whose work involves heavy exercise are allowed to eat lightly as long as they are discrete about it.

The practise with Baha'i and Muslim fasting is to have a substantial breakfast before dawn and then have supper after sunset. The total amount of food isn't redused that much, but none of it is in daylight hours. This isn't a weight-loss plan.

Observant Jews have several fast days in the year, the most important of which is Yom Kippur. This is a 24 hour fast with no food or drink (not even water). It is required of all Jews over Bar Mitzvah age, and (from what I know) the only exceptions are those whose life would be in danger if they fasted.

Do these practises sound healthy?

EDIT: I've been told by a Baha'i doctor not to fast because I'm diabetic. I felt really left out but it would be disobedient to fast under those circumstances.

I'm pretty sure it's 'a bit miserable' rather than 'unhealthy' to eat nothing from sunrise to sunset.... my Muslim friends tell me so, anyway.     Going one day without food for Yom Kippur is probably in a similar vein.  It's prolongued fasting that's unhealthy or, as in your case, if you have a clinical condition that would be made worse by not eating regularly.  Wanting to join in is all very well, but you're not a lot of use to your god if you're in a coma.

GI-Jane makes a good point.  Fasting probably isn't in your best interest. 

As a side note I did read an article in Mens Health, if memory serves, about a guy that swears by fasting.  The way he did it was once a week, sundays, he would not eat.  As for the rest of the week he would eat normal meals and not worry about splurging here or there each day.  One day a week he would fast, last meal saturday night, next meal monday morning...  He said he lost about 35 lbs, once again if memory serves, and got down to and maintained a healthy body weight with that diet.  But this form of dieting is specific to the individual, and as jane said above, would not recommend it for you.

I live in Dubai where during Ramadan muslims fast. They eat nothing between sun rise and set, not even water, which is madness, last year ramadan was august with temperature of 130F! We were banned from eating in public during daylight and all the food places were shut, however as soon as 6.30pm came it was feast time. Muslims were getting up at 4am to feast and then pray, at sunset you are supposed to break your fast with water and a date - iftar, however huge iftar tents were set up all over Dubai where people ate and drank most of the night. To be honest most people didnt reduce what the ate just the time they ate it. Offices changed the working hours, and most rich UAEs didnt work therefore slept during the fasting period and were awake at night instead.

Not sure this is healthy, in fact UAE, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia all have higher obsesity adn diabetites than USA! Perswonlly id put this down to a culture where food is the center of socialising, rather than partying etc. Exercise and sport arent part of peoples daily habits, espcailly for women. Also whislt clothes are very important to richer arabs, lcoal dress is long looses covering dresses for both men and women so if your boby is less noticable then its easier to be relaxed about gaining weight.

Chelseagirl: That's bats! Eating a normal amount after dark is far more in the spirit of it. They should save the feasting for the day the fast ends.

flamel - of course its bats, but Dubai is about rich people indulging. Dont for a moment think that food is the worst of the indugences...

I was raised LDS (Mormon) and they fast the first Sunday of every month. No food or drink generally for 24 hours which usually for us meant eating an early dinner on Saturday night then having a normal dinner on Fast Sunday. I never thought about it but doing it once a month for religous reasons can't reall be all that bad for you. Doing it for a month? Yikes! Glad I don't have to.

definitely a NO No for a diabetic. Of course it is dependent on if you are willing to die young or suffer the long term effects of diabetes for the sake of getting to heaven. {If so, why waste a doctors time or all the expense ofmanaging your diabetes (especially if you do not pay for all the costs)- just die young and get to heaven faster if you are such a religious nut- I have no sympathy for those that waste (abuse)scarce and expensive resources like medical care.}  People do odder (and way, way nastier) things in the name of religion. The reason it is a no no is that diabetes have poor control over their blood sugar levels. It is  HIGH blood sugar levels that damage (alter) redblood cells. The higher the sugar level, the more sugar attaches to red cell. The attachments make the red cell"rougher" and less flexible. That means it "scrapes" blood vessel walls and had a harder time moving in the smallest capillaries. Over time the damage done to blood vessel walls is what causes the "complications" of diabetes- what causes organs to fail- (renal( kidney) damage; eye( retinal) damage; poor circulation, not enough white blood cells moving to fight disease, less red cells moving to bring oxygen- gangrene loves such an environment- then amputation;etc.

  So fasting is no food. No food -no increased sugar levels? so why? I think (do not know for certain) a diabetic has such poor control adjusting sugar levels that when they eat there is more out of control surging of sugar levels. A steady level of sugars is easier on a diabetics body long term? Do check it out. It may depend on the type of diabetes you have as to how bad fasting is for you. It is easy enough to check your particular bodies response- just chart your food and sugar levels (do not forget to chart "medications", etc -  have as few variables as possible). Compare fasting to non fasting sugar levels- ( och for all those hourly pokes checking out the sugars). Anytime the sugar increases too much (and especially how long it stays increased) you are asking for long term damage.  If you are doing A1C tests on a regular basis try comparing non fasting months to fasting months- make certain your diet and methods of eating apart from the fasting is the same otherwise  the comparison can be meaningless.(again control the variables).  A1C measures the "damage" to red cells from high sugars. Red cells are produced every day- they generally live for 120 days as a result A1C levels are a good measure of how well a diabetic has managed to control their sugars during the last 120 days.  Can it also meanthat an occasional indulgence resulting in high blood sugars may be OK in the sense of not increasing the risk from long term complications? You will have to wait 120 days for the damaged cells to die before indulging again? maybe- you must give your body a chance to repair the damage too. Good questions to ask,research and keep yourself updated about if you are a diabetic who wants to take as may "safe"  risks as you can. ( all for the glory of a possible non existent god? do it for your friends and family- it a better reward)

I'm the diabetic who was told not to fast. I believe the chief danger is *low* blood sugar. This is especially a risk if you use insulin or drugs to boost your insulin production. Passing out isn't useful to anyone.

I've tried to fast twice against medical advice. The longest I lasted was about 8 hours. Both times I checked my blood glucose every 2 hours or so to make damn sure it was at least in the normal range. I believe it was far more difficult for me than it would be for a healthy person: I had a rotten time and have no desire to repeat the experience.

Flamel what you say is true- insulin dependent diabetics have a major problem with low blood sugar - as very low levels can kill that is what they have to watch out for- passing out, going into a coma, been hospitalized is no fun either. The long term effects of high sugars is less major daily concern.  Fasting means no quick way to up sugar levels with food for type I diabetics. With the type two diabetics they do not tend to have very low ( killing type) low sugars.  I'm not positive but insulin resistant diabetics are type two - they have a hard time bringing blood sugars down, but do not tend to get very low blood sugars. TypeII's are into eating small amounts of food in order to limit very high levels of blood sugars for a long time. For typeII's small amounts of food every 4 hours or so gives them an acceptable levels  of sugar that give them energy without the high levels that cause long term damage. Personaly I find the major problem with diabetics getting into a low sugar state is that they get irritiable- makes them unplesent people to be around. I had an aunt that got VERY irritable- nothing anyone does is right- talk about cranky. after a bite to eat was she as easy going and as pleasant to be around as you could ask for. Real Mr Jeckell/Dr Hyde changes in personality.  Since she had a regular schedule in her life, she would make sure she was not driving when she was likely to have low blood sugar.  Always be aware "road rage' and similar behavior may be a "medical" condition. I'd suggest any diabetic that commutes driving a car have a small easily consumed snack to prevent the likelyhood of "road rage".  I really do not see any point in a "religious" fasting if such personality changes occour easily in a diabetic. Of what use to anyone, let alone any god, is a very cranky person?  It is a good thing that most religions make exceptions for the "sick".

So why fasting is BAD comes down to this.

nsgardener: I don't see how fasting would cause high blood sugars. Not that I'll ever do it again.

My former religion doesn't have religious professionals so the doctor who told me not to fast was my "religious instructor".

nsgardener - how has a topic about religous fasting become a debate on diabeaties and blood sugar.

Regligious fasting is about going without something to learn to appercate what you have got. In no regligion would you be expected to fast if its detrimental to your health, your health is the most precious thing you have.

During ramadan pregant women, the elderly, those on medication, children etc dont fast they simply cut back on luxuries.

Chlesegirl- maybe that about religious fasting is true. Lent for Christians is what Mohamad copied for Ramadan.  Lent and its spiritulal fasting is rarely followed by Christians now. Even the most devote Roman Catholic's do not make a public showing of following it the way Muslims are flamboyant (and police state) about it.  Brazillians evolvedthe festive Mardi Gras. Some muslims have started partying evey night of Rammaden.

 Your interpretation of religious fasting is different from mine when it comes to Diabetics. Diabetic are "sick" as far as not eating for hours is detrimentral for their health.  May be we could compare it to smoking. some people never suffer from cancer and other illness and causes of death from smoking,  some die  before then,other quit smoking for other reasons. You can not deny that there is evidence that the habit of smoking a lot of tobacco either eventually makes their lives miserable or kills them. Fasting - not eating for hours for hours  is the same problem for Diabetics.  for type 2 diabetics it is the long term effects only that is a problem, type1 has both immediate death and long term complications resulting in death from diabetes.  Why quibble all - like someone quipped- all deaths are "heart attacks"- You die when your heart stop beating.

"In no religion would you be expected to fast if its detrimental to your health, your health is the most precious thing you have."  I'm sorry to say that statement shows your youth and ignorance.  Many religions have religious pratices that are detrimental to health.  Time and time again people like falamel who started this posting refuse to accept they should not fast.  If it really was  clear that fasting should not be allowed if it was detrimental to health, famael would NEVER have made her attempts to fast.  Just like nobody would dream of taking up smoking if they wanted to be "healthy". Religion has yet to catch up with western medical knowledge.  Most organized religions are years behind in science, let alone medicine. Even man made laws are years behind- just look at the fights over surrogate parented children to see recent innovation is tricky to resolve.  ( DNA testing as to who the child really is-the implanted egg died while the surrogate mother's egg fertilized by her partner thrived caused a lot of grief. People desperate to be parents refusing to believe. Or surrogate mother refusing to hand over clearly contracted babies, or parent-to-be refusing defective babies -tetrologic, congenital  or genetic defects)

nsgardener: I don't see how fasting would cause high blood sugars. Not that I'll ever do it again.

My former religion doesn't have religious professionals so the doctor who told me not to fast was my "religious instructor

"I don't see how fasting would cause high blood sugars" -  I'm sorry I may not have been that clear that I'm actually saying that behaviors typically associated with religious fasting is likely to cause problems.  Often there is something festive associate with the end of the fast if it is religious. Normal human behavior has people eating excessively with "feasts". that feasting would make sugar levels go up higher than normal and for a longer time. that causes damages to the red cells,etc.  Maybe your religious fasting pratices would allow you the kind of restrictive meals all diabetices should follow but you know as well as me from the postings how hard it is when a person trying to diet has  relatives who are convinced a break in your diet will not hurt you. Their "diet" is broken as they get obligated into eating what they do not want in order to please someone else. Also someties you cannot blame those relaties and friends for their behavior when they notice some one who is a "diabetic' eating with out restrictions; they in their lack of knowlege will thinK its Ok for all diabetics to behave that way. Knowing about the 120 days of a red cells death, some diabetics are willing to risk a few days overindulgence but yet be very careful the rest of the year hoping their blood vessels have proper time to heal before next years indulgences.

 There are reports that some muslim socities are making Rammaden gluttonous feasts at night- proof been that at the end of a month of "fasting" people gain weight.  There is no "sense" to religion - it's NOT science with its precise terms. A though- the term religious fasting could as easily be religious gluttony - why can you not learn from eating to much as eating too little ? - with each mouthful you have to spend five minuites contemplating some religious something before the next gulp or mouthfull ?

"My former religion doesn't have religious professionals so the doctor who told me not to fast was my "religious instructor"  Wow you do have a good religious instructor. maybe it was a good thing you tried to fast aganist his 'Instructions".  Actually by checking you sugars while fasting you were very sensible and as cautious and as responsible as you can be while at the same time been defiant- wish all "rebels" were as sensible- parenting would be so much easier. Its a good experience you had- remember to tell it to every young relitive you know- if they have any sense they would be impressed by such a sensible yet defient, rebellious aunt. I'm impressed. You defied both your doctor and your religious instructor and did not land in hospital.    Be sensible though. My mother knew a woman Dr- she must be one of the firt women Drs back in the 1930's. when she became a diabetic she took full advantage of the newly discovered knowlege about diabeties. She was a fine women. Never married and brough up(she was the eldest) her orphned younger siblings. She died in her 80's  ( would likely be 110's if still alive ?). Though bedridden and blind she has full command of her mind when she died. In her last few years she was well cared in the home of her one of her younger sisters she brought up. A lovely true story. I wish all type1 diabetics could know of her story and know you can have a long fulfilling life even if you are an insulin dependent diabetic.

nsgardener - i honestly have no idea what you are talking about, surrogate babies? Also prefer if you didnt call me ignorant.. consider myself pretty aware of life and various cultures having lived in 17 different countries and being able to speak 5 languages, add to that my first class honors degree and i think you would have to agree im by no means ignorant.

nsgardner: Nobody in this thread has defended post-fast gluttony. You're really showing a lot of anti-religious prejudice.

Two more points:

1: Baha'is have a duty to follow medical advice. It's not at all anti-scientific.

2: I'm a guy.

"In no religion would you be expected to fast if its detrimental to your health, your health is the most precious thing you have".  That statement does show your "ignorance". There is ignorance and ignorance.  I concede you can be very cleaver and know lots of things, I do not doubt that you can know 5 languages, traveled many lands and have a impressive degree. ( Not hard to make a such an appology as I was not meaning to insult. Actually fairly meaningless as everyone knows of more impressive people that have been wrong, and for that matter those with less experience that have been right.)  But why would falamel ever try fasting twice (not just even once) as a type 2 diabetic if your statement was remotely true. I do not know if you know but BBC has reported that in the UK admittence of diabetic muslims goes way up during Rammaden -why? they were fasting! Since diabetic comas carry a high risk of death why in a knowleagable, civilized land were so many muslims can easily reserch medical knowlege in fine libraries , are ignorant of the fact they should NOT be fasting according to your knowlege of fasting pratices possibly gained from living in a muslim country?  I'm sorry there is empirical evidence your stament does not reflect reality. It just reflects your views which to me shows you likely have a wonderful warm supportive personality- A very nice person in other words. The fact is many diabetics do try to fast for "religious" reasons. So what makes you think your statement above reflects reality? If you had said idealy, supposedly, it is sad that people are unaware, etc I'd have accepted your statement with no problem. If I cannot use the term 'ignorance', mind supplying me with whatever is the current political correct term that would apply to your lack of knowlege that would not offend you, people of your age, background or education? ( by the way words do change, in Canada in the late 1960's when calling someone retarded became "politicaly incorrect" (a term not yet coined back then) people started using ignorant. Talk about the word Ignorant been a fighting word back then! If you were a Canadian back then you would be fighting mad, not just "insulted")

As for not understanding Surrogate parenthood comment .probebly it is not clear. I'm just trying to say if new advances in medicine can easily show seculaist are slow at understanding all consequences behind the new advance, how can you expect religions to cope any faster? For years it is known "fasting" can complicate treating insulin dependent people to the point they are likely to die. Yet 80 years of treating diabeties have yet to have all religions clearly forbidding type 1 diabetics to fast.  If your comment about religions and fasting is true, for years upon years people like flamal would never dream of fasting and not one muslim would be admitted to emergency wards in diabetic comas because they were trying to fast during Ramaden.

nsgardner: again: when I fasted I knew my religion did not require me to fast and that I was being disobedient. I fasted on two occassions for less than a day because I had to stick my hand in the fire to learn anything.

 So you think post fast gluttony "prejudice" was shown? Actually  I was going on more on what I observe of myself and others when they are hungry- people tend to "inhale" food when very hungry. Possibly ettiquete involved with religious fasting might slow the eating but unless it involves eating small proportions every 4 hours or so you are talking about high levels of damaging high blood sugars. From cooking and food sites, it seems to me there is a lot of gluttony involved in any cultures feast and festivals. Hard for diabetics with out a strong will to do the right thing.  By the way the Ramadan/ gulf oil rich Muslims/Arabs- did you knowthey have some of the highests rates of type 2 diabetes and overweight and if they keep good records, there may be some excellent information for medical researchers to mine for diabetic research, especially of type 2's who fast. A silver lining in many things ifyou look hard enough. the bad thing is there seems a prejudice against DNA testing. that would make for difficulties in interpreting data. Given their society I could see determining family relationships can be a problem. Pity, inbreeding that occours with cousin marriages are a great help with tracing genetic causes of disease. The cousin marriages of European royalty was a great help in determining the recessive nature of hemophallia.

I have perfectly good reasons for anti-religious prejudice. Just as good if not better than anyone for following a religion. If my parents were religious I'd never would have been born- they were of different religions. Back then a great deal of fuss made over marriages between different religions.   Actually given that I can trace Buddhism, Hindu, spirit worship and various groups of Christians (at some point they had happily killed each other) in my ancestors, I'm not anti-religious so much despising religion for the easy way religious people no problem with killing each other for slight religious differences. when you have as many ancestors of different religions that have married each other as I have,you could say it makes it very easy to have bias against religions that despise non followers. In one way or the other they ALL do to some degree. Contradictory claims makes "religion" rubbish.  Like astrology -some are into the day of the week one is born, others into months, and others into years. ???? people are strange.

 If you are a guy and is sensitive about it,well state you are a guy. I'm sorry if you are offended. I may have in your case have had a gender bias since I would judge a girl more fascinated with fasting -reading those sad posts of teenage girls trying to become extremely under weight clearly got me that bias.  Thanks for showing me that - I stopped reading them a while ago - was horrifying to me, very depressing to know what to say to those that are so wraped in their own reality. The encouraging thing is seeing so many posters who seem to know how to help them.  The story of the Dr since she is a woman may be more encouraging to a girl, but lots of boys are into rebeling about their diabetes too - they also need to know a good long life is possible. Remember she was diagnosed when Insulin therapy and understanding diabetes was very new. With today's knowledge surely all diabetics can have even better lives than her who may have not realised till too late the problems associated with not keeping blood sugars low that had her bedridden and blind. Reading about some with a lifelong problem with their eating disorder there are times when I think diabetics may be luckier with their problem- at least it is actually there and not some thing people around them are saying is saying its all in their head. I suppose that is one reason why I'm appalled by diabetics ever feeling that they should religiously fast. Diabetes is not all in their heads, and there is nothing in the way of will power that will allow type 1's to fast safely. All fasting religions have had 70 years to wrap their heads around that idea and make certain new generations of diabetics never feel badly about not been able to fast. Its especially cruelty to children otherwise. Gross. when you ask why I am anti religion-that would be an example- if a religion is to be "good" to its followers, they should not be so "dumb" as to take over 70 years to make diabetic followers comfortable about not fasting.  Flamel- you should never have been tempted into trying to fast. I hope your experience will teach you to encourage those of your religion to renew their efforts at making clear "sick" people should not fast. Obviously your doctor was not able to make you understand and that is why you tried fasting. Some medications need to be taken with food and a steady medication is important for best treatment. those people should not feel bad about eating just sufficient for the medicine to work. Religions do do good and I do know that, but how can I really have more respect for them than"science" if they take over 70 years to make certain diabetics do not feel bad about fasting. read up about medical treatment of gastric ulcers and the 'outrage of eminent doctors faced with their whole career tattered by the discovery that a microorganism in the stomach causes some ulcers. That was around 1980's (?) Yet for years now no doctor doubts that fact. Why should I not in some ways admire 'science' more? It has its problems too but the quickness of it's honesty can beat any religions claim to justness. There is a personal element too- there is nothing like an older brother who tries to claim he is right when he is obviously wrong ( and beat you up about that also) for a person to grow up to dispise those who falsely claim truth.

I started this thread because I noticed that several people who I respect were dead set against fasting. I wanted to know if the sort of religious fast I described was safe for healthy people. The first response to my post, by GI Jane, answered my question.

So the fact that I cannot fast safely is beside the point. Diabetes is beside the point.

Please read more carefully - I mentioned in my original post that I was no longer a Baha'i. My present religion does not practise fasting.

I was open about being male, but I did not mention it because anyone could discover it in my profile. I am a 51 year old man, not a teenage girl with a possible eating disorder. You could have found this out very easily: my profile is quite open.

chelseagirl had a point in wondering how this came to be about diabetes. You've really stolen this thread, nsgardner.