Thousands of observations of both man and animals have established the fact that when the
physical organism goes without food, the tissues are called upon in the inverse order of their
importance to the organism. Thus fat is the first tissue to go. The stored reserves are used up
before any of the functioning tissues of the body are called upon to supply nutrients for the more
vital tissues such as the brain and nerves, the heart and lungs. As it feels among its supplies for
proteins, sugars, fats, minerals, and vitamins, and redistributes, utilizes and conserves these stores,
the fasting organism exercises an ingenuity that seems almost superhuman. The aggregate of tissues of the organism may be regarded as a reservoir of nutriment which it
may call in any direction or to any part as needed. But these tissues are not sacrificed
indiscriminately. On the contrary, wastage of those organs that are primarily essential to life is
repaired by withdrawal from less essential organs of materials required by the more important
ones. Many of the necessary nutritive constituents, and this is especially true of certain minerals,
are vigorously retained. Studies made on men and animals to determine losses of various tissues and organs in prolonged
abstinence from food have almost all been made on organisms that have died of starvation. 29Starvation and fasting are two totally different stages of abstinence. It should be quite obvious that
the extreme losses seen at the starvation stage of abstinence are far greater than they are in a fast of
reasonable length. Extreme weight losses are not experienced in any normal fast. Where they
occur, the fast should be broken. One must differentiate between fasting and starving. To 
fast
 is to abstain from food while one
possesses adequate reserves to nourish his vital tissues; to 
starve
 is to abstain from food after his
reserves have been exhausted so that vital tissues are sacrificed. We are not left unwarned as to
when the reserves are nearing exhaustion. Hunger returns with an intensity that drives one to seek
food, although during the fast proper, there is no desire for food. This differentiation between
fasting
 and 
starving
 should help to dispel any notion that starvation sets in with the omission of
the first meal. Contrary to popular and even professional opinion, the vital tissues of a fasting organism, those
tissues doing the actual work of life, do not begin to break down the instant a fast is instituted. The
fasting body does lose weight, but this loss, for an extended period, is one of reserves and not of
organized tissues. There are numerous examples in nature of continued growth while fasting, both
of the organism as a whole and of parts that have been lost. Experiments have shown that calves
continue to grow while fasting. The starfish may grow a new stomach, new tube feet, and new arms
while fasting. The fasting salamander that had lost a tail, will grow a new tail while taking no
food. Such facts bear out dramatically the underlying truth: the process of fasting does not suspend
the constructive processes of life, but that these continue in a remarkable manner. The efficiency of the living organism in regulating the expenditure of its resources during a fast
is one of the marvels of life. In periods of abstinence, the less important organs of the human being although they waste
consequent upon the withdrawal of substance from them with which to nourish the more vital
tissues, do not undergo degeneration until the starvation phase of the period
 of abstinence is
reached. The atrophy of muscles may be no greater than that seen to occur from a lengthy period of
physical inactivity, while there is no loss of muscle cells. The cells grow smaller, the fat is
removed from the muscles, but the muscle retains its integrity and a surprising amount of strength. Loss of weight varies according to the character and quality of the tissues of the individual, the
amount of physical and emotional activity engaged in, and the temperature surrounding the faster. Physical activity, emotional stress, cold and poor tissues all provide for more rapid loss. Fat is
lost faster than any of the other tissues of the body. Bodily condition is, perhaps, the chief determiner of how long one may safely fast. In the case of
the two who survived the plane crash, and went four weeks without food, for example, they had
snow which is water and this kept them from the danger of dehydration. They could live without
food; the lack of water would have been fatal. Voluntary or involuntary, the faster must have water. It is clear then that fasting must be carried out intelligently, with proper precaution, and with
common sense. Precisely as a novice swimmer would seek expert guidance and advice before starting on a long
swim, so the inexperienced faster must obtain reliable guidance as a precautionary measure before
launching upon a fast of any extended duration. 304
Hunger versus Appetite
Many efforts have been made to explain the mechanism by which the sense of hunger is produced,
but none has been satisfactory. In my opinion, for higher animals at least, there can be no doubt that
hunger is felt through the nervous system, but this is at best a general statement. What the sensation
of hunger actually is has been the subject of much speculation. For all practical purposes here, it is
necessary for us primarily to distinguish between the genuine sensation of hunger and the many
other sensations that are often mistaken for hunger. Unfortunately, too many physiological investigations into hunger are limited to studies of short
periods without food, a few days at the most, not enough to give a clear picture of the manner
 in
which the body’s demand for food manifests itself. It is interesting to note that trained
physiologists still describe hunger in most cases in almost pathological terminology. Hunger is a sense of distress or discomfort in the region of the stomach. It may be an actual pain. It expresses itself in hunger pangs. It is a gnawing in the stomach, an “all gone” feeling, a sense of
weakness—all these are part of the popular mythology of hunger. Even headache is sometimes
mistaken for hunger, and even by some trained practitioners. The truth is that hunger is a normal, not an abnormal, sensation and all normal sensations are
pleasant. It is an error to think of hunger in the terms of symptoms of disease, just as it would be to
think of thirst, or any other of the body’s normal desires, as painful or uncomfortable. Normal
hunger is indicated by a general bodily condition—a universal call for food—which is localized,
so far as localization takes place, in the mouth, nose and throat, just as is the sense of thirst. There
are no “hunger pangs” associated with 
genuine
 hunger; there is only a pleasant sensation in the
nose, mouth and throat and a watering of the mouth. The hungry person is conscious of a desire for
food, not of pain or irritation. It is a false appetite that manifests itself by morbid irritation,
gnawing
 in the stomach, pain, the
feeling of weakness, and various emotionally rooted discomforts. The dissimilarities between such
irritations and a true sense of hunger are quite sharp, the average person tied to the habit of eating
at all hours of the day and night rarely permits himself to become hungry and consequently
mistakes these morbid sensations for a valid call for food. As eating commonly relieves symptoms
of distress, the individual becomes convinced that food was just the thing needed. Often it is a kind
of eating binge; the individual eats to cover up psychological miseries, as the drunkard drinks to
drown his. True hunger is selective rather than indiscriminate; it does not gulp greedily, but frequently
demands a specific type of food. On the other hand it does not demand “luxurious dishes” as
appetite tends to do, but is satisfied with plain fare. The compulsive eater who is not genuinely
hungry is often plagued with vague longings to eat, without knowing exactly what he wants to eat. Usually, he wants something highly 
stimulating
 to his taste buds, well seasoned, exotic. Hunger is intermittent and manifests when there is a need for food. It is never continuous;
individuals who are “always hungry” are really displaying pathological symptoms. Am I implying
that most people do not really know when they are hungry? I am indeed. Beginning almost with
birth and the three-times-a-day stuffing program that is common to our so-called modern
civilization, average individuals in average communities never experience genuine hunger. 31Since hunger is the normal indication of a need for food, it may be taken for granted that when
hunger is lacking, no such immediate need exists. Either the need is not present or the
 actual ability
to make use of raw materials is absent. In the absence of hunger, there is no natural or normal
reason why food should be taken. There are ample grounds for believing that the digestive system
is in the best state to receive and digest food when real hunger is present, and that when hunger is
absent the digestive processes are slowed or suspended. We have cultivated the habit of eating by
the clock to such a point that we often persist in ignoring even a strong repugnance to food. Hungry
or not, we eat as a matter of routine, as social activity, because we have nothing else to do, or
because eating seems to relieve some of our worries. The most important rule in our eating habits, and indeed in our daily lives, is this: 
Never force
food into the stomach either in health or in sickness, unless there is a definite demand for it as
manifested by genuine hunger. In adults, alcohol, tobacco, coffee, a protracted sexual episode, strong emotions and enervation
all result in a loss of the normal desire for food. Pain, fever and inflammation cause one to lose his
desire to eat, as does abdominal distress. There is no better way for an adult to meet this situation
than to refrain from eating until there is a return of hunger—until the breath is sweet, the tongue is
clean, and there is keen relish for food. Food should be taken only when there is comfort and
poise. In acute disease, hunger is not present for the simple reason that the energies of the organism
have been diverted into other channels. There is no energy to spare to carry on work like digestion,
that can temporarily be dispensed with. Not only is nervous energy diverted to the task at hand, but
there also is diversion of the blood to parts requiring extra blood for the unusual action. Digestion
is suspended in such a mighty effort, just as it is when one engages in strenuous physical effort,
such as running. Yet food is often taken at such times under the medical dictum that we must eat to keep our
strength. In such instances the food is sometimes thrown up, or may be rushed out of the digestive
tract by means of a diarrhea. If not expelled in these ways, it becomes a burden in the digestive
tract, further adding to the poisoning of the body. Even where the unusable food materials may be expelled from the body, the effort of the body to
get rid of the unwanted nourishment lessens the efficiency of the body’s defensive and expulsive
efforts in progress against the cause of the disease. Forces are diverted from the work of healing
and wastefully expended in an effort that could be avoided by the simple expedient of fasting. This
partial and temporary suspension of the remedial effort slows up the recovery of the patient. Indeed, the repugnance to food that is present may rightly be regarded as a “closed-for-repairs”
sign placed at the entrance of the digestive tract. It should be heeded. Sometimes we 
think
 we want food when we 
are sick, but this is a false desire that, if satisfied,
increases our suffering. I recall a personal experience as a teenager. I suffered with a slight fever,
malaise, foul breath, a bad taste in my mouth and general discomfort. In obedience to my
inclination under the condition I went to bed. But I was hungry or thought I was. I thought I wanted
sardines. I wanted them so badly I could almost taste them. I demanded sardines. My mother didn’t
think sardines would be advisable for a sick boy, but like other youngsters I had learned that if I
protested long enough, my parents would “give in” even against their better judgment. I continued
to demand sardines. Finally my mother sent to a nearby store and purchased a can of sardines. She arranged them on
a dish and brought them to my bedside. I took one small taste and gave the dish back to my mother. 32I found that I did not really want anything. My body wanted no food. Even though I knew nothing of
fasting in those days, I instinctively fasted and was soon well without taking any drugs. I have seen parents employ many means of coercion and persuasion in their endeavors to get
sick infants and children to eat in spite of their refusal. A common mode of persuasion with
children is to bribe them with promises of toys, candies or baseball mitts. “Eat this for mother,”
runs the common plea. “The doctor wants you to eat this.”
“If you do not eat you can’t get well.”
It is only ignorance that permits us to browbeat sick children with such false “truisms.” In
chronic illness the individual may believe he is hungry but his sensations are, in fact, nothing more
than irritations of the digestive tract. These morbid symptoms end when the individual fasts. If the
desire to eat was real indication of the need for food, the symptom pangs would increase as the
fast progressed. The fact that the “hunger” ceases and the patient becomes comfortable is a sure
indication that they have no relation to genuine hunger. The statement sometimes heard that hunger ceases on the third day of the fast implies that true
hunger is present during the first two days of the fast. This is usually not true. It is gastric irritation
that ceases on the second, third or fourth day of the fast. 335
Four Reasons for Fasting
The purposes of fasting are many
 and varied; they range from bodily health factors and weight
reduction to religious concepts and rituals—though the latter are usually for too brief a time to be
considered as serious fasting, generally lasting no longer than a day at most. Weight reduction is certainly a desirable goal, but should it be our only goal? Are there not
other health factors involved in losing weight? Should there not be other clear cut physical and
health benefits obtainable through a worthwhile fast? Dr. Robert Walter, prominent for his work in 
Hygiene,
 was head of the world-famous 
Hygienic
Walter’s Park Sanatorium at Wernersville, Pennsylvania. He states that a moderate “hunger
cure”—as fasting had been termed early German Nature Curists and early 
Hygienists
—is
exceedingly beneficial in a great number of diseases. In understanding the way fasting can help the
human organism let us examine briefly here fundamental areas where total fasting, with the sole
exception of drinking water, can play an important role. We have already begun to explore what
we may call area number one—weight reduction. There can be no question that fasting produces
the quickest, safest and most effective avenue available for weight reduction. But it is important to note that in the cases of overweight individuals, weight reduction is an
added benefit even when not the sole, or even the main reason for the fast. A second reason is what I call physiological compensation, in which the delicate automatic
balances of nature come into play. To expend on one side, nature must conserve on the other. This
time-tested fact applies to all of the operations of living things, including human beings. If you
have the water running in your bath tub and somebody turns on the water in the kitchen sink, the
rate of the flow into the bath tub is immediately diminished. When the water in the kitchen is cut
off, the rate of flow into the bath tub is immediately increased. A similar phenomenon is witnessed in the operation of the body. If food is to be digested, much
blood must flow to the digestive organs and we tend to become sluggish, even to 
fall asleep. If we
force ourselves to do hard work, the process of digestion is practically suspended. Fasting by conserving the energies of the body that are regularly employed in the work of the
digestive system, permits the diversion of these energies to other channels with which to
accomplish other work. Energy saved in one department may be expended in another. A third reason is to secure physiological rest. This is rest of the digestive, glandular,
circulatory, respiratory and nervous systems. In a general sense, the more food one eats, the more
work must be performed by the organs making up these systems; when there is a great reduction in
the amount of food taken, these ogans rest. When no food is taken at all, they rest most of all. It is
not difficult to understand that when no food is eaten, the glands of the mouth and stomach, the
whole digestive tube, the liver and the pancreas rest; it should be equally as easily understood that
the heart and arteries are also relieved of a burden and secure rest. The glands of the body, other
than those that secrete digestive juices, are also permitted to reduce their secretory activities. Respiration is slowed down and the nervous system has less work to do. All of this means rest. There is a theory that the metabolism and inactivation of the fasting man resemble that of the
hibernating animal. It says that only during the prenatal phase of man’s existence is there greater
immobilization of the digestive tract and muscles than during a fast. There is much truth in this
34theory, but we should recognize that the fasting man is not dormant, as is the hibernating animal,
and is not as inactive as is the embryo. Indeed, so far as mind and muscles are concerned the
faster, unless he goes to bed, relaxes his body and poises his mind, may be very active. It is true,
however, that the more closely the faster can approach the inactivity of the prenatal stage of
existence, the more rapid will be his progress. The rejuvenation of the cellular structures will be
in keeping with his inactivity. The fourth reason is the all important matter of elimination. J.H. Tilden, M.D., who was founder
of the famous Dr. Tilden’s Health School in Denver, Colorado, and edited and published two
magazines and wrote several books, said: “After fifty-five years of sojourning in the wilderness of
medical therapeutics. I am forced to declare, without fear of successful contradiction, that fasting
is the only reliable, specific, therapeutic eliminant known to man.”
Felix L. Oswald. M.D. agrees with him, saying: “Fasting is the great system renovator. Three
fast-days a year will purify the blood and eradicate the poison-diathesis more effectively than a
hundred bottles of expurgative bitters.”
Nothing known to man equals the fast as a means of increasing the elimination of waste from the
blood and tissues. Only a brief period elapses after food is withheld until the organs of elimination
increase their activities and a real physiological house-cleaning is instituted. As the fast progresses pent-up secretions
 or, more properly, retained waste, are thrown out of
the body and the system becomes purified. Relief of irritations occurs; the body becomes rested. In
a vital sense the individual is “made over.” Perhaps but a few days are required to free the blood
and lymph of their toxic excess, but the fast goes deeper than this and occasions the excretion of
toxins that have long been stored in the less vital tissues. The nutritive stringency created by the fast causes the body to break down (by autolysis) all
superfluous tissues and nutritional stores and to make use of these in sustaining the functioning
tissues of the body. In this process, stored toxins are released into the circulation to be carried to
the organs of excretion and eliminated. Dr. Oswald declares: “With no digestive drudgery on hand, Nature employs the long-desired
leisure for general house-cleaning purposes. The accumulations of superfluous tissues are
overhauled and analyzed; the available component parts are turned over to the department of
nutrition, the refuse to be thoroughly and permanently removed.” Elimination of superfluities and
encumbrances, neither of which can be achieved in a state of surfeit, is compatible with increasing
powers and with processes of physiological and even biological readjustment during a fast. Excretion is a fundamental function of life and it is as essential to the continued existence of the
organism as nutrition. More than a hundred years ago, Sylvester Graham who wrote 
Science of
Human Life,
 and who launched the world’s first health crusade in 1831 (Graham flour and Graham
bread are named after him) pointed out that in all living bodies there is an economy of
disassimilation and excretion co-equal with that of nutrition. So long as an organism is alive,
assimilation and growth on one side, and excretion on the other are in constant operation. There is a constant effort to maintain normal purity of the fluids of the body by unceasing
excretion of waste and by expelling all non-usable substances that may be introduced. Anything
that the body cannot utilize as food must be expelled, hence excretion must go on as continuously
as the processes of nutrition. Day and night, asleep or awake, from before birth to death, the processes that expel waste and
toxins from the body never cease. To a great extent the two processes of nutrition and excretion are
performed by different organs, although there is some overlapping. The energies of the organism
35are at all times divided between assimilation and elimination, but there are times when one
process takes precedence over the other. In certain conditions of the body, excretion is much more
important and assimilation is reduced to a minimum. There is a theory that excretion is suppressed when food is taken. It is held that the body cannot
assimilate and eliminate at the same time. While there is an element of truth in their theory, it is not
strictly accurate. Excretion must go on, even while food is being digested, else waste would
accumulate and result in death from self-poisoning, It is safer to suspend the nutritive processes for
a brief time than to suspend those of excretion, although a complete suspension of the nutritive
processes would also be fatal. Only in a very limited sense is it true that “assimilation arrests
elimination.”
There is also a theory that the increased elimination that occurs during a fast is only incidental to
the effort of the body to secure nutriment for its functioning tissues. Here the idea is that as the
body liquidates its non-essential and least essential tissues, and uses these as nutrients with which
to sustain the essential tissues, stored up toxins are released into the blood and lymph, and are
carried to the organs of excretion and cast out. The search for nutrients is conceived to be primary
while the excretion of toxins that results is secondary to this effort to find food. I believe this concept holds much truth. Waste and toxins are stored in the tissues, especially in
the fatty and connective tissues, and, as these tissues are liquidated, the stored toxins are released. This seems to be the reason for the long-continued increase of excretion, for it would seem that the
toxic load carried by the blood and lymph would be eliminated in a few days by the immediate
increase in excretion brought on by abstinence. Yet is it rational to assert that a function as fundamental to living existence as that of excretion is
secondary to any other body function? It is to be doubted. The energy of the two processes bears a
more or less constant relation to each other. As fasting reduces energy expenditure in digestion, the
sum of energy thus saved is available for use through other channels to carry out more efficiently
processes and functions which become for the moment, more important than digestive action. The
body is enabled to mobilize its forces for other purposes, such as elimination and healing. That this is the correct interpretation of the action that occurs is shown both by the fact that rest
without fasting will increase elimination, even if not to the same extent, and that a reduction of
food intake also increases elimination. It appears that whatever lessens the work of the organism
permits an increase in the work of elimination. The actual increase in elimination in fasting is seen even before any demand is made upon the
food reserves. It is especially noticeable in the increased output of the kidneys that have been
previously depressed in function, as is often seen in heart disease. The increase in excretion is
seen in these cases, even before there has been any increase in heart efficiency. There is also the
fact that in the early part of the fast, as well as in its later stages, increase in elimination is out of
all proportion to the amount of tissue liquidated. Increased energy for elimination seems to be at
least partially responsible for the increase in this function. There are those who ask: “Can fasting cure a cancer?”
My answer is that while I have seen cancerous growths greatly reduced in size during a fast, I
have never seen one eliminated completely. It has been observed that diseased tissues in the organism are the first to be broken down and
salvaged by the body during the fast as it strives to meet nutritive requirements of vital and
functioning tissues. Dr. Berg claims that this is the most important healing effect of the fast, an
opinion with which I cannot wholly concur; the breaking down of such tissues does not represent
36more than a small part of the beneficial effect of the fast. Dr. Berg, however, states of fasting in its relationship to tissues, and particularly to cancer:
“One assumes, perhaps too hastily, that it would be the diseased, altered tissues with their
diminished power of resistance which would be the first affected by this. This is certainly not
always the case, especially in cancer. One has often been able to determine that although the
patient becomes thin, the tumor continues to grow; really a perfectly clear thing since the cancerous
tumor is an autonomy and is most often encapsulated and not in any direct contact with the rest of
the body.”
While the concept of the autonomy of cancerous growths can be over-worked, it is true that in
some cases, they do persist in growing even through a long fast. In other cases the cancerous
growth is greatly reduced in size, although I have never seen one totally obliterated by fasting. Benign tumors
 on the other hand are frequently completely broken down and absorbed. Berg adds: “Furthermore, through the fast, when no new foods are supplied, one desires to
provide the body with the possibility of mobilizing all of its deposited waste products and oxidize
and eliminate them.” As the accumulated waste is largely already oxidized material, it is
elimination rather than oxidation that is secured by the breaking down of tissues taking place
during the fast. The excretion of dropsical effusions, edematous accumulations, swellings,
infiltrations, and growths of various kinds is often rapid during a fast. 376
Gaining Strength
“I don’t feel any different now than when I started my fast. I really feel fine.”
The young lady who told me this had been without food for three days in the opening stages of a
fast to lose weight. She had observed no change in her strength. Indeed, she experienced an
exhilaration, a lightness almost euphoric in effect. This is not an unusual experience. A fact that has been observed in thousands of instances is that
great numbers of invalids, instead of losing strength while fasting, gain it. Invalids who were
growing weaker on the many and varied “nourishing diets” that are commonly advised, will
frequently begin to grow stronger as soon as they begin to fast. Paradoxical as it may appear, the
weakest persons often derive the greatest benefit from a period of abstinence. Weakness, in most
cases, is not due to lack of food, but to a toxic state of the body. The popular idea runs that the weak must be “built up.” They are told they are “too weak to
fast.” Even when the patient is growing steadily weaker while eating what is called “plenty of
good nourishing food,” it is assumed that the food build-up must go on. Never was there a greater
error. When a patient is so weak that he is unable to turn in bed, possibly in severe pain, and with
fever, there is no power to digest food. Will the patient recover if fed like a harvest hand? Often he
will, but the feeding will be no part of his recovery. If he dies, over-feeding at a critical time
could have been a direct cause of his death. Will he recover, if he fasts? Not always. But he will
be more likely to do so than if fed. It is a popular idea that man is immediately and utterly dependent upon food supplies every few
hours, and that he will grow weak and die if he misses a few meals. Well or sick, we are expected
to eat three or more times each day. We are to be deaf, blind and silent to every signal of distress
and eat in spite of such signals. If there is no desire for food, eat anyway; if there is actual
repugnance for food, disregard it; if there is nausea, eat; if the digestive function is badly impaired
or has been suspended,
 so that digestion is impossible, eat anyway. Such is the popular
misconception. How often do we read that some notable patient is now “able to take nourishment” only to have
the next report state that the patient is worse? This is such a common occurrence that it is difficult
to understand why the connection between the ill-advised feeding and the subsequent deterioration
of the patient’s condition is not quickly discerned. One notable example out of the past is the case
of the world-famed actor, Joseph Jefferson, during whose last illness, Dr. Charles E. Page made
the following memorandum from the published accounts of his illness:
“April 16th: Has not retained nourishment. April 20th: The patient is better. April 20th: Retained nourishment. April 21st: More restless: condition less favorable.”
Mr. Jefferson had pneumonia, a disease in which it is especially important not to eat. Further he
had suffered with gastritis for several months before developing the pneumonia. His illness was at
first described as an “attack of indigestion from an indiscretion in diet on a visit to a friend.”
38During the pneumonia, he had no desire for food, and there was no possibility of digesting and
assimilating it, but he was fed in spite of these circumstances. Forced feeding, alcohol and heart
stimulants
 followed. After his death, it was announced that “his age was against him.”
Thousands are thus yearly fed into premature graves. Today, as then, do we not read or hear of
such cases. It is part of a process that goes on because the world still believes it can eat itself
well. Apparently it is difficult for us to learn anything from such experiences, although they occur
daily. Due to the obscurity of most such patients, they do not make headlines. Going without food
in these cases not only relieves pain, but it rests the heart and relieves the kidneys. Giving digitalis
to 
strengthen
 the heart and morphine to 
relieve
 the pains and discomforts that follow injudicious
feeding, instead of omitting food, may kill the patient. The sick man rallies when food is omitted
and he relapses when feeding is prematurely resumed. These definite results should reveal the evil
of feeding the acutely sick. It is almost the invariable rule that the seriously acute sufferer gains strength as his symptoms
decline through fasting until, by the time there is a natural call for food, his strength is often
amazing. It is not rare that we see a patient who has been eating regularly but is too weak to get out
of bed, gain strength almost from the beginning of a fast, until, by the end of a week or ten days of
fasting, he is able to be up and walking around. I have seen patients so weak they would crawl up
the steps while eating, and I have seen these same patients run up the same steps after a few days
of fasting. During the closing years of the last century and the early years of this,
 many fasters seem to have
tried to ascertain how much work they could get out of their body while abstaining from food. They
were proud of winning foot races, setting world’s records in weight lifting, working longer hours
and doing more work, both mental and physical, while fasting than while eating. Some of them kept
late hours. Tanner ran a race with a reporter; Gilman Low set several world’s records in lifting;
Macfadden lifted weights while fasting; many continued their daily activities during prolonged
fasts. I know of one individual who worked in an office at detailed account analysis. He reported that
his mind was keener and his mental reactions appeared to him to be not only sharper but quicker
during fasting periods. One faster was questioned by a newspaper reporter who refused to believe that the man he was
interviewing, who had been on a fast for several days, did not suffer from physical weakness. “I’ll prove it,” the faster told the reporter, “I’m fitter now than you are.”
The reporter asked him if this were a challenge. “Yes. I’ll race you a hundred yards.”
The race was arranged promptly, the faster and the reporter lined up, ran the course. The
reporter was much younger than the faster, and much more the athletic type. But he lost to the man
who hadn’t had a mouthful to eat for days. Another man, who had vast experience in the fast, had this to say to me: “The brain becomes
wonderfully clear; the body grows into a recognition of its own power; languor, disinclination to
mental and physical work disappears, and one enters upon his daily duties with a vim and energy
and a delight that betokens the possession of the perfect and abounding health which is every man’s
birthright.”
Of course the faster must at all times heed the instructions of the supervisor guiding the fast. This
is above all true with physically weak individuals whose reserve strength may be below that of the
39average normal healthy person. In all cases, when the fast supervisor instructs that the fast be
broken, this order must be heeded immediately. There are cases in which the fast is broken only after two or three days. Fine. If this is what the
expert orders—break it. As in all other human activities, wisdom, caution and common sense must guide our actions. But
in most cases the fast, under proper guidance, continued for the proper duration in relation to the
individual physical needs and requirements, will leave the faster stronger rather than weaker in his
general physical and mental capabilities and responses. 407
Can Fasting Kill? To take up every misconception in the public mind about fasting would require a special volume. But certain fallacies ought to be examined—and cleared away. The most important of these is the
erroneous statement that fasting can kill. Let us be very clear on one basic fact: to fast is not to starve. To starve is to abstain from food
beyond the period when the fast must end; when the individual has reached a point at which
weakness rather than strength sets in, or gives indications of setting in. Since the fast should and
indeed must be conducted under expert professional direction, the director orders the fast broken
before it ceases to be fasting and becomes starvation instead. Can starvation kill if abstention from eating continues deep into the second or starvation stage of
abstention? It can; and in some rare cases it has, where common sense has been deliberately ignored. Mrs. Gloria Lee Byrd, author of two books on outer space, died at the age of thirty-seven as a
result of prolonged abstinence from food. She abstained from eating for sixty-six days. She had
been instructed to fast for peace, she said, by ‘J.W.’ a ruler of outer space, who had called her
from Jupiter. She was to continue her fast until ‘J.W.’ sent what Mrs. Byrd described as a ‘light
elevator’ to Earth to take her to Jupiter. It is not certain that she totally abstained from food for the whole of the sixty-six days. Physicians at the Washington, D.C. hospital where she died expressed the opinion that she had
taken juices part of the time, but had been on a ‘complete’ fast during the last month of her life. Here again we have an example of the misuse of terms. The news account states that she
‘starved’ herself for sixty-six days and then tells us that she was on a ‘complete’ fast for at least
thirty days of her period of abstinence. As her fast was voluntary, even though undertaken under the
belief that she had been instructed to do so by some being from outer space, she may be said to
have fasted (in the true sense of this term) for a 
certain period without food, and to have begun to
starve sometime in the latter part of this time. It may be that she died of starvation; it cannot be said
that she died of fasting. As the published account of her death provides us with no details of her size, the state of her
flesh, her rate of loss, her activities while abstaining from food, and other details that should be in
our possession in order to determine how long she fasted and when she began to starve, we will
hazard no guesses about these matters. I judge from her picture that she was a small woman; she
does not seem to have been fat. She had been an airline hostess and since in this profession women
are commonly chosen above a certain height, we may assume that she was not a short woman. Perhaps fifty days would have been somewhere near her limit as a faster, but this would have also
depended on her physical and emotional activities. Mrs. Byrd became unconscious only four days before her death and did not regain
consciousness. What was done to her in the way of treatment during these last four days in the hospital is not
revealed. It is physiologically impossible to starve to death before the skeleton condition is
reached, but death may occur at any time, fasting or eating, from other causes. Fasting, as I have defined it in this book, does not cause death. Death from lack of food can
41occur only after the total exhaustion of the body’s food reserves. It does not immediately occur
then, as it is still possible to maintain the functions of the vitally essential organs by sacrificing the
less essential organs. But death may result from an advanced condition of cancer or heart disease or Bright’s disease
or some other condition of this nature while the fast is in progress. In such cases it is not correct to
attribute death to the fast. Those patients die without fasting and it is reasonably certain that in
most cases they would die sooner if eating. An example of a death falsely attributed to fasting is that of a nine-year old boy in Albany, New
York in September, 1932. The coroner called it death brought on by starvation. The news account
did not state how long the boy had been without food, but it did state that he collapsed while
attending school. Now, no boy that is near death from starvation attends school. In an actual state of starvation the
boy would have lacked the strength to walk. He would have been confined to bed for several days
prior to death. The account also stated that the boy was “seized with convulsions.” Convulsions
never complicate starvation. Such stories while they tend to keep alive the myth that the sick must
eat “plenty of good nourishing food to keep up strength,” are fallacies. When anyone dies while fasting, sensational newspapers are almost sure to herald the death as
one due to starvation, without knowing the conditions of the faster or actual details of the case. Such stories play up the 
starvation angle, and the general public is likely to get a distorted picture
of fasting from such sources. What would be the result if some newspaper published the details of
every death that occurs in a large city hospital for a whole year, giving the name of the physician in
attendance, the name of the hospital where the death occurred, the drugs or operations employed—
and attributed each death to the drugs or the operation? Such a procedure might not convince the
public that drugging is a monster evil, but it would certainly cause consternation among physicians. There are certain to be some failures of fasting to achieve lasting recovery. This is especially
true in those far advanced cases that have turned to fasting as a last resort. It cannot be claimed that
fasting will enable every man, woman and child regardless of his condition and the stage of the
sickness, to recover good health. Its limitations are those of the body. Fasting is not a 
cure. Healing is a spontaneous biological
process and only such healing as the body is capable of doing can occur whether the patient feasts
or fasts. Hopeless cases that have already reached the stage of irreversibility will not recover
when, as an eleventh hour measure, the patient turns to fasting for help. The danger most often is not, in fact, that the patient will be starved, but rather that he will be
stuffed to death. Where a disease is terminal and there is no hope of recovery, it seems to me cruel
to stuff the patient with overfeeding that can only increase the suffering of the dying. 428
Does Fasting Cure? If fasting in general does not weaken the faster in weight reduction and even tends to increase
strength—does it benefit in disease? One of the leading practitioners in the field of fasting, George S. Weger, M.D., who headed the
Weger Health School, Redlands, California, and wrote 
The Genesis and Control of Disease says:
“The writer is willing to side with the enlarging minority and believe in the efficacy of the fast. Facts will not down. Nothing is more gratifying, no work more inspiring, than actually to witness
complete recovery during comparatively short periods of fasting in diseases such as chronic
eczema, urticaria of years’ standing, varicose ulcers, gastric and duodenal ulcers, asthma, arthritis,
colitis, amoebic dysentery, endocarditis, sinusitis, bronchitis, neuritis, Bright’s disease, acute and
chronic appendicitis, tic douloureux, fistula, psoriasis, all kinds of digestive disorders—urinary
and bilary calculi, pellagra, glaucoma, lump on the breast, epithelioma, migraine, acidosis, pupura
hemorrhagica, epilepsy, paralysis agitans, Reynaud’s disease, and even locomotor ataxia.…
“Many other derangements could be added to the list, which is not by any means exhaustive,
neither does it represent single experiences. Conclusions are based upon actual group results. Many will say, ‘Preposterous!’ Many will say there is no such thing as a ‘Cure-All’! Others may
damn with faint praise. To all doubters we must say in all seriousness that fasting, and a diet
properly selected and combined, are the nearest approach to a ‘Cure-All’ that is possible to
conceive—profoundly simple and simply profound.”
Dr. Weger did not believe that fasting is a 
cure
 for disease: indeed, along with Dr. Tilden, he
did not believe in 
cures. I account for his use of the term in this instance only by assuming that a
man brought up in the belief in 
cures
 having had it instilled into his mentality throughout his term in
medical college and through years of medical practice, here falls into the habit of using the term in
a generalized sense rather than in the precise meaning it has taken on in modern thinking. The view of 
Hygienists,
 and both Dr. Tilden and Dr. Weger had abandoned the practice of
regular medicine for a 
Hygienic
 practice, is that fasting is not a 
cure
 in the modern meaning of this
much abused term. Fasting does not 
cure
 anything. A fast is a period of physiological rest. It does
not do anything at all. It is, rather, a cessation of doing. The rest provides an opportunity for the
body to do for itself what it cannot do under conditions of surfeit and full activity. The term 
cure
 comes from the Latin 
cura
 which was the equivalent of our word care. But the
meaning of words is constantly changing. The biologist, A. D. Darbishire, formerly with the
University of Edinburgh, in analyzing the changing meaning of words in his 
Introduction to
Biology says:
 “When the adjective curious detached itself from its parent substantive, cure meant
care. Thus cure first meant the care of the healthy, then the successful treatment of the sick, and
lastly the drug supposed to drive away the malady. We speak of and even believe in a cough cure.”
Today the word cure is variously defined as a medicine effective in treating disease, as a
successful treatment of a disease or wound, or again as a system of treating disease. When we say
that there are no 
cures,
 we simply mean that there are no methods or systems of treatment that in
themselves restore health, whether the treatment is directed to a wound or a so-called disease. This is to say that there is and can be no such thing as a “successful method of treating disease.”
There is no “course of treatment” that will restore health. We go further and assert that disease
43should 
not be treated; that it should not be 
cured,
 that there is no need for a 
cure. The attempt to restore the sick to good health without correcting or removing the cause of
diseases is too often what is understood by 
cure. To 
cure
 in this modern usage, is to give a drug or
to perform a rite, mechanical, surgical, or psychological, that will, it is hoped, restore health in
spite of the continued operation of the cause of sickness. The search for 
cures
 which is continuous is a search for means of restoring the sick to health by
the application or administration of a treatment without the necessity of removing the cause or
causes that are maintaining the impairment of health. As a recent example, cortisone was employed
to 
cure
 arthritis, the cause of which is admittedly unknown. The cortisone was not supposed to
remove the unknown cause. Cause was ignored and cortisone was administered. The first clearing
up of symptoms was heralded with enthusiasm as a successful 
cure. But a short time elapsed
before it was realized that this 
cure
 was as illusory as other 
cures. The production of effects can be ended permanently only by removing the causes responsible for
them. We behave as though we believe that effects can be erased and their production ended
without the necessity of removing the causes producing them—that we can sober up a drunk man
while he continues to drink, that we can prevent the evolution of cancer of the lungs while the man
continues to smoke. It is necessary that we learn the simple but fundamental lesson that when cause is removed the
body can begin to heal itself. Removing cause does not do the healing; it only makes it possible for
the restorative processes of the organism to perfect their work. Healing, as distinct from 
curing
 is a biological process; it is not an art. A surgeon may bring the
severed edges of a wound together and suture them, he cannot heal the wound. He may bring the
ends of broken bones together and fix them so that they do not again become separated. But he
cannot unite the two sections of the bone. The actual knitting of the bone is a process of life that
only the living organism knows how to carry out. Man can neither duplicate nor imitate the
process. Briefly describing the processes by which the body repairs its injuries, Dr. Robert R. Gross of
Hyde Park, New York, says: “We know precisely how a callus is formed to knit broken ends of a
bone and the parts played by bone cells (
osteocytes
), the bone-forming membrane (
periosteum
),
the 
fibroblasts
 (cell-producing fibrous tissues) and capillary blood vessels. We know a severed
continuity of the skin heals by various so-called ‘intentions’—first and second—by the appearance
of fibroblasts and endothelial buds (embryological blood vessels) to form granulation tissue
connecting the split skin layers and placing them in apposition to one another.”
This somewhat technical description of some of the processes of healing a wound or broken
bone actually bears out the truth that the remarkable process of healing as carried on by the living
organism, employs the same 
processes in the production of new tissues, whether soft or bone
tissue, that are employed in the production of skin, muscles, blood vessels, nerves, bones—the
total organism—from conception. Healing is accomplished by the same processes by which the tissues were first produced. I
repeat: the production of new tissue 
(histogenesis)
 in healing a wound or knitting a broken bone, is
the same as the process of producing new tissue in the original evolution of the organism from
fertilized ovum to fully formed organism. These processes can neither be duplicated nor imitated
by any disease-treater, whatever his medical bag of tricks may hold. The secrets of healing are locked up in the living organism and there is nothing outside the
organism that can usurp its prerogative of self-healing. We may study the processes by which
44healing is accomplished, but we cannot reproduce them. There may be a science of healing, but no
art of healing, because art as such, is distinctive from the life processes. We are dealing not with
the art of the physicians but with the work of living tissues. Admitting that there are many circumstances, chiefly wounds, and traumatic conditions, in which
a skilled surgeon can be of inestimable service, it remains tragically true that too often the “healing
art’’ consists of throwing monkey wrenches into the vital machinery. Once we have fully grasped the significance of the fact that healing is a process of life, that the
processes by which healing is accomplished are as much a function of the living organism as the
processes of digestion, respiration, circulation, elimination, reproduction, we can understand that
so-called 
cures
 may come and go, but healing goes on endlessly. We will understand why almost
anything may appear to 
cure,
 although there are no 
cures. This brief description of the healing processes should underscore the fact that all healing is self-
healing, and that fasting is therefore not a 
cure,
 in the sense that this word is now defined. When
we say that fasting does not 
cure
 disease, we mean that it heals no wounds, knits no broken bones,
it repairs no tissues, eliminates no poisons; it does none of the things that are parts of the processes
of healing. It does not initiate these healing processes, nor does it keep them in operation. The healing
processes are spontaneous and ever-imminent, springing into activity the instant there is need for
them. There is a very radical sense, however, in which it may be said that fasting is an integral and
essential part of the over-all process of healing: it is a part of the 
remedial process
 that is called
disease—at least in many circumstances and conditions of life. When the body cuts off all desire
for food and rejects it if eaten, it should be understood that the abstinence thus enforced is part of
the over-all process by which health is restored. As a physiological rest, fasting is merely one of the normal conditions
 for the efficient operation
of the healing processes that are intrinsic to life. It provides opportunity for the body to do its own
healing work in its own inimitable way and with less hindrance. When we place a sick person
upon a fast, we do not do so with any idea that we are administering a 
cure
, but with the idea that
we are providing the organism with a much needed rest. Writers and lecturers who speak of the
“fasting cure,” or a “hunger cure” or of “therapeutic fasting” are simply victims of popular
fallacies. They do not accurately describe the fast and its role in caring for the body. Nor should fasting be called a rest 
cure,
 as it has been. Rest does not 
cure. The sick are no
more 
cured
 by rest than are the well. Rest is one of the normal needs of life—as essential to
continued existence as are food and air, warmth and sunshine, exercise and cleanliness. But it no
more 
cures
 disease than does any of these other elements of nature’s plan of hygiene. Does fasting 
cure? Obviously, from the foregoing the answer is no. But it is also clear that
fasting, used properly under correct supervision and guidance, can be a powerful silent ally in the
body’s healing process. 459
Fasting: Where and When? Apart from our motivation and goals in fasting, the question of proper supervision, and other facets
of fasting already considered, there are several basic considerations that should be discussed here:
Where to fast, and when, and how long? Although the questions appear simple on the surface, they present complex problems that cannot
be answered as easily as one might imagine. For each is concerned with matters that relate to the
individual, his personal physical condition and other factors of a variable nature. The problem of when to fast for example, involves not only the matter of climatic conditions—
which may become extremely important—but also the question of how quickly it may be
considered essential for the individual to begin the fast. Because fasting lowers one’s resistance to cold and the faster is easily chilled, fasting is more
pleasant generally in warm weather than in cold. For this reason, there are those who advocate
fasting in summer. On the 
other hand, Dr. Oswald considered winter entirely suitable for fasting
and pointed to the example of hibernating animals to support his view. Moreover, waiting for
summer could involve procrastination during which the condition of the patient might deteriorate. Chronic disease tends to evolve into more serious stages with the passage of time. I believe that a fast should be entered into at any time of the year it may be needed, without
reference to the climate. No impairment of health should be risked awaiting changes in climate. If
one stays indoors and keeps warm, it is as easy and safe to fast in winter as in summer. Fasting is
equally as beneficial at one time of year as at another, and the logical rule should be: 
Fast when
there is a need for it. It is best, when uncomfortable in any way, to stop eating until feeling well, without respect to
the time of year. There are varying degrees of inability to appropriate food in the various states of impaired
health, and in all of these, a period of abstinence will hasten recovery. One should not wait until
one is suffering with serious disease before instituting remedial measures. Take care of the small
illnesses at the right time and in the right way and the more serious illnesses will not evolve. It is
unfortunately true, as Dr. Charles E. Page, who lived in Melrose, Mass. and was an outstanding
Hygienist,
 says, that “nearly all patients continue eating regularly, until food becomes actually
disagreeable, even loathsome, often; and after this, every effort is exhausted to produce some
toothsome compound to tempt the appetite. Furthermore, and often worst of all, after the entire
failure of this program, the patient can, and usually does, take some gruel or some sort of ‘extract’
which he can drink by holding his breath. All this tends to aggravate the acute symptoms, and to
fasten the disease in the chronic form upon the rheumatic patient, or to insure rheumatic fever; and
the same principle holds in nearly all acute disorders, it is well to remember.”
Fasting is a preventive program in that it initiates the cleansing process before serious
developments have occurred. Fasting is used successfully in many cases of serious chronic
illnesses—in advanced stages—and this will be explained later. But certainly it is wise to “nip in
the bud” all such developments rather than to wait until the trouble has become formidable before
doing anything about it. A great number of those who are reading this book are already in advanced
stages of disease and they will desire to know what they can expect from a judicious fast. Much of
46this book will be devoted to answering such questions for them. At this point, it is only essential
that I say that, while fasting can save many lives it is too much to expect it to save all lives without
respect to the condition of the patient at the time the fast is undergone. Dr. Page also says: “There is neither pleasure nor nourishment in forced feeding, only pain,
poisoning and starving. The fasting cure universally and rationally applied, would save thousands
of lives every year.”
Dr. Page further urges the immediate launching of a fast wherever indicated, emphasizing that in
serious cases, “plenty of good food” as the saying goes, can kill far more quickly than it can
benefit. The question, when to fast, is answered: When the need arises, as quickly as can be arranged,
under advice, and without great expectations of immediate miraculous developments, instant
recovery, or overnight slenderizing to sylph-like proportions. We have been brought up in the belief that we can recover health in one swallow of a pill. That
weight which has taken years to amass will vanish in a matter of hours. In cases of serious disease,
the same lack of realism is seen. The layman is unacquainted with the state of deterioration in
organs and tissues, and is likely to expect, even demand, results that are impossible. A man who
has taken forty or fifty years to evolve the diseased state that he presents when he undergoes a fast,
may expect to get well in a few days or a few weeks. The sooner we can divest our minds of this false notion, the better will we be able to
comprehend the fact that getting well, which is an evolution in reverse, requires time and
persistence. One fast is often not enough. The chronic sufferer, after long years, will have not only
to persist in his efforts to undo the effects of a life-time of wrong living, but he will have to
exercise patience in his efforts. Yet there are also conditions in which a fast, at least of any length, is inadvisable, even
impossible. In states of great emaciation, in advanced stages of heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and
in advanced tuberculosis, there is nothing to be gained from a fast. Fasting in cancer of the liver
and in cancer of the pancreas is especially to be avoided. Where there is great fear of the fast, it is
well not to undertake it. In pregnancy, fasting should be resorted to only in cases of urgent necessity. In cases of morning
sickness, common in the early stages of pregnancy, fasting a few days will prove of benefit. Apart
from this, if there is no acute disease that makes a fast essential, the woman should avoid fasting
while pregnant. By this I do not, of course, mean that she cannot miss an occasional meal or even
fast for a day or so, if she finds it helpful. As fasting causes the milk of the nursing mother to diminish, and it is not increased when feeding
is resumed, the nursing mother should avoid fasting unless her adviser considers it an urgent
necessity. It is important for the expectant mother to maintain high-level health during pregnancy
and the nursing period. A student of 
Hygienics
 once made the following half-joking comment: “The trouble with fasting
is, there's no place to do it in.”
The environment of the faster is too often filled with difficulties and obstacles. Home should be
an ideal place, but usually isn’t. This is partly because of the wide-spread ignorance about fasting. Also, the home too 
often is located amid the noise and fumes of the city, where the water is
“drugged" until it is almost unfit to drink. With a little effort it is possible for the man in the city to
obtain pure water, but pure air is not possible. Perhaps the greatest obstacle to fasting at home is the almost inevitable opposition of the faster's
47family and relatives, not to mention his neighbors and friends. They will not let him alone. They
plead with him and badger him to eat. They tell him he is crazy, that he will kill himself, that he is
looking bad, that if he does not cause his own death, he is sure to do serious harm to himself. They may become angry, even hysterical, in their efforts. They quarrel with him and annoy him
so much that fasting is all but impossible. They call in a physician to persuade him to break the
fast. They may even call in the police or threaten commitment in a mental institution. Tasty tidbits are prepared for the purpose of tempting him. They can turn the fast into a
grotesque nightmare. I have had to take patients out of their homes and send them elsewhere to
complete the fast. On the other hand, where there is family cooperation, a fast in the home is carried out with ease,
peace and success. It should be carried on amid quiet, peaceful surroundings, where the air is pure, the water fresh
and uncontaminated, and the people congenial. As it should also be properly supervised by one
experienced in conducting fasts, the best place for fasting is an institution in which fasting is
regularly carried out. A 
Hygienic
 institution located in the country and headed by an experienced supervisor, forms an
ideal combination for a fast. Fasting is not merely refraining from eating for a required period. It
involves rest, sunbaths, bathing, quiet, peace, and the care of the patient through the period of
recuperation after the fast is broken. All of this requires knowledge and experience. For most people, fasting is an unusual experience. This is particularly so if it is a first fast. The
faster is likely to experience unfounded anxiety, uncertainty, mental perturbation, even fear. In
addition he experiences new feelings and sensations that may disturb him. For these reasons alone,
the best place to fast is at an institution, under the guidance of a man of wide experience in fasting. How long should one fast? What is the time schedule? There are several different views about
this and much discussion has been engaged in over these issues. Ideally, the answer is basically
that the fast should continue until the return of hunger. Practically, however, this is not always
possible, and it is rarely wise in any event to set an arbitrary limit to the duration of the fast. No man is wise enough to predetermine the amount of fasting that will be required in a given
state of the organism, nor can one tell in advance how much fasting will be safe in a particular
case. The experienced man 
does not launch a fast with the idea that the patient is going to break
any fasting records. Fasting is not a stunt, nor a contest. The supervisor starts the patient on the fast with an objective
in view—to reduce weight, to lower blood pressure, to relieve the body of accumulated waste, to
rest a tired nervous system, to bring about rejuvenation of the individual, or whatever may be the
specific goal. He carefully watches the faster and the day-by-day developments and breaks the fast
when his object has been attained or before any danger to the faster has developed. No living thing can go indefinitely without food, but fasting is always safe within the limits of
the organism's power of self-help. As this limit is well demarcated, there is little likelihood that
the experienced practitioner will mistake it and carry the fast beyond the point of safety. If the fast
is continued, nature herself will always indicate when the fast should be broken. Arbitrary limits are justified only if the patient has limited time in which to fast and be ready to
return to work, or in those cases where a long fast is inadvisable. Other than these instances, the
only satisfactory plan of conducting a fast is to be guided by the day-by-day developments in the
physical state of the faster. By this rule, a fast may last a few days, a few weeks or a few months. The longest fast I have
48ever personally conducted was one of ninety days. Two other patients passed seventy days, and
many have gone beyond sixty days. Such long fasts are not the rule, nor can every faster safely
continue so long. Each fast must be conducted according to the needs and the abilities of the
individual. The practitioner who arbitrarily sets a predetermined limit to the fast does not do justice to the
faster. To set a limit of three days or a week or for twenty-one days, as some do, is to break the
fast in the great majority of instances far in advance of the time it should be broken. Nor should the
faster start out with the idea that he is going to try to set a record or to reach a certain goal in terms
of number of days. The only logical rule is the following: 
Let developments determine the length
of the fast. In some cases a series of short fasts is preferable to one long fast. In general, one lengthy fast
produces better results than a series of short ones. It is not always possible for a patient to take a
series of short fasts. The time required is often too great and the expense prohibitive. And such a
program, unless rigidly supervised, is capable of producing harm such as never results from a
properly conducted long fast. There is the fact also that a program of alternating feeding and fasting
tends to become more difficult for the individual to carry out. Often the periods of abstinence are just long enough for the faster to become adjusted to the
fasting process, then they are broken.
Fasting_Can_Save_Your_Life_by_Herbert_M._Shelton.txt
Summarize the following text section accurately and concisely. Maintain specific details and numerical information, and use anti-repetition mechanisms:

        Thousands of observations of both man and animals have established the fact that when the
physical organism goes without food, the tissues are called upon in the inverse order of their
importance to the organism. Thus fat is the first tissue to go. The stored reserves are used up
before any of the functioning tissues of the body are called upon to supply nutrients for the more
vital tissues such as the brain and nerves, the heart and lungs. As it feels among its supplies for
proteins, sugars, fats, minerals, and vitamins, and redistributes, utilizes and conserves these stores,
the fasting organism exercises an ingenuity that seems almost superhuman. The aggregate of tissues of the organism may be regarded as a reservoir of nutriment which it
may call in any direction or to any part as needed. But these tissues are not sacrificed
indiscriminately. On the contrary, wastage of those organs that are primarily essential to life is
repaired by withdrawal from less essential organs of materials required by the more important
ones. Many of the necessary nutritive constituents, and this is especially true of certain minerals,
are vigorously retained. Studies made on men and animals to determine losses of various tissues and organs in prolonged
abstinence from food have almost all been made on organisms that have died of starvation. 29Starvation and fasting are two totally different stages of abstinence. It should be quite obvious that
the extreme losses seen at the starvation stage of abstinence are far greater than they are in a fast of
reasonable length. Extreme weight losses are not experienced in any normal fast. Where they
occur, the fast should be broken. One must differentiate between fasting and starving. To 
fast
 is to abstain from food while one
possesses adequate reserves to nourish his vital tissues; to 
starve
 is to abstain from food after his
reserves have been exhausted so that vital tissues are sacrificed. We are not left unwarned as to
when the reserves are nearing exhaustion. Hunger returns with an intensity that drives one to seek
food, although during the fast proper, there is no desire for food. This differentiation between
fasting
 and 
starving
 should help to dispel any notion that starvation sets in with the omission of
the first meal. Contrary to popular and even professional opinion, the vital tissues of a fasting organism, those
tissues doing the actual work of life, do not begin to break down the instant a fast is instituted. The
fasting body does lose weight, but this loss, for an extended period, is one of reserves and not of
organized tissues. There are numerous examples in nature of continued growth while fasting, both
of the organism as a whole and of parts that have been lost. Experiments have shown that calves
continue to grow while fasting. The starfish may grow a new stomach, new tube feet, and new arms
while fasting. The fasting salamander that had lost a tail, will grow a new tail while taking no
food. Such facts bear out dramatically the underlying truth: the process of fasting does not suspend
the constructive processes of life, but that these continue in a remarkable manner. The efficiency of the living organism in regulating the expenditure of its resources during a fast
is one of the marvels of life. In periods of abstinence, the less important organs of the human being although they waste
consequent upon the withdrawal of substance from them with which to nourish the more vital
tissues, do not undergo degeneration until the starvation phase of the period
 of abstinence is
reached. The atrophy of muscles may be no greater than that seen to occur from a lengthy period of
physical inactivity, while there is no loss of muscle cells. The cells grow smaller, the fat is
removed from the muscles, but the muscle retains its integrity and a surprising amount of strength. Loss of weight varies according to the character and quality of the tissues of the individual, the
amount of physical and emotional activity engaged in, and the temperature surrounding the faster. Physical activity, emotional stress, cold and poor tissues all provide for more rapid loss. Fat is
lost faster than any of the other tissues of the body. Bodily condition is, perhaps, the chief determiner of how long one may safely fast. In the case of
the two who survived the plane crash, and went four weeks without food, for example, they had
snow which is water and this kept them from the danger of dehydration. They could live without
food; the lack of water would have been fatal. Voluntary or involuntary, the faster must have water. It is clear then that fasting must be carried out intelligently, with proper precaution, and with
common sense. Precisely as a novice swimmer would seek expert guidance and advice before starting on a long
swim, so the inexperienced faster must obtain reliable guidance as a precautionary measure before
launching upon a fast of any extended duration. 304
Hunger versus Appetite
Many efforts have been made to explain the mechanism by which the sense of hunger is produced,
but none has been satisfactory. In my opinion, for higher animals at least, there can be no doubt that
hunger is felt through the nervous system, but this is at best a general statement. What the sensation
of hunger actually is has been the subject of much speculation. For all practical purposes here, it is
necessary for us primarily to distinguish between the genuine sensation of hunger and the many
other sensations that are often mistaken for hunger. Unfortunately, too many physiological investigations into hunger are limited to studies of short
periods without food, a few days at the most, not enough to give a clear picture of the manner
 in
which the body’s demand for food manifests itself. It is interesting to note that trained
physiologists still describe hunger in most cases in almost pathological terminology. Hunger is a sense of distress or discomfort in the region of the stomach. It may be an actual pain. It expresses itself in hunger pangs. It is a gnawing in the stomach, an “all gone” feeling, a sense of
weakness—all these are part of the popular mythology of hunger. Even headache is sometimes
mistaken for hunger, and even by some trained practitioners. The truth is that hunger is a normal, not an abnormal, sensation and all normal sensations are
pleasant. It is an error to think of hunger in the terms of symptoms of disease, just as it would be to
think of thirst, or any other of the body’s normal desires, as painful or uncomfortable. Normal
hunger is indicated by a general bodily condition—a universal call for food—which is localized,
so far as localization takes place, in the mouth, nose and throat, just as is the sense of thirst. There
are no “hunger pangs” associated with 
genuine
 hunger; there is only a pleasant sensation in the
nose, mouth and throat and a watering of the mouth. The hungry person is conscious of a desire for
food, not of pain or irritation. It is a false appetite that manifests itself by morbid irritation,
gnawing
 in the stomach, pain, the
feeling of weakness, and various emotionally rooted discomforts. The dissimilarities between such
irritations and a true sense of hunger are quite sharp, the average person tied to the habit of eating
at all hours of the day and night rarely permits himself to become hungry and consequently
mistakes these morbid sensations for a valid call for food. As eating commonly relieves symptoms
of distress, the individual becomes convinced that food was just the thing needed. Often it is a kind
of eating binge; the individual eats to cover up psychological miseries, as the drunkard drinks to
drown his. True hunger is selective rather than indiscriminate; it does not gulp greedily, but frequently
demands a specific type of food. On the other hand it does not demand “luxurious dishes” as
appetite tends to do, but is satisfied with plain fare. The compulsive eater who is not genuinely
hungry is often plagued with vague longings to eat, without knowing exactly what he wants to eat. Usually, he wants something highly 
stimulating
 to his taste buds, well seasoned, exotic. Hunger is intermittent and manifests when there is a need for food. It is never continuous;
individuals who are “always hungry” are really displaying pathological symptoms. Am I implying
that most people do not really know when they are hungry. I am indeed. Beginning almost with
birth and the three-times-a-day stuffing program that is common to our so-called modern
civilization, average individuals in average communities never experience genuine hunger. 31Since hunger is the normal indication of a need for food, it may be taken for granted that when
hunger is lacking, no such immediate need exists. Either the need is not present or the
 actual ability
to make use of raw materials is absent. In the absence of hunger, there is no natural or normal
reason why food should be taken. There are ample grounds for believing that the digestive system
is in the best state to receive and digest food when real hunger is present, and that when hunger is
absent the digestive processes are slowed or suspended. We have cultivated the habit of eating by
the clock to such a point that we often persist in ignoring even a strong repugnance to food. Hungry
or not, we eat as a matter of routine, as social activity, because we have nothing else to do, or
because eating seems to relieve some of our worries. The most important rule in our eating habits, and indeed in our daily lives, is this: 
Never force
food into the stomach either in health or in sickness, unless there is a definite demand for it as
manifested by genuine hunger. In adults, alcohol, tobacco, coffee, a protracted sexual episode, strong emotions and enervation
all result in a loss of the normal desire for food. Pain, fever and inflammation cause one to lose his
desire to eat, as does abdominal distress. There is no better way for an adult to meet this situation
than to refrain from eating until there is a return of hunger—until the breath is sweet, the tongue is
clean, and there is keen relish for food. Food should be taken only when there is comfort and
poise. In acute disease, hunger is not present for the simple reason that the energies of the organism
have been diverted into other channels. There is no energy to spare to carry on work like digestion,
that can temporarily be dispensed with. Not only is nervous energy diverted to the task at hand, but
there also is diversion of the blood to parts requiring extra blood for the unusual action. Digestion
is suspended in such a mighty effort, just as it is when one engages in strenuous physical effort,
such as running. Yet food is often taken at such times under the medical dictum that we must eat to keep our
strength. In such instances the food is sometimes thrown up, or may be rushed out of the digestive
tract by means of a diarrhea. If not expelled in these ways, it becomes a burden in the digestive
tract, further adding to the poisoning of the body. Even where the unusable food materials may be expelled from the body, the effort of the body to
get rid of the unwanted nourishment lessens the efficiency of the body’s defensive and expulsive
efforts in progress against the cause of the disease. Forces are diverted from the work of healing
and wastefully expended in an effort that could be avoided by the simple expedient of fasting. This
partial and temporary suspension of the remedial effort slows up the recovery of the patient. Indeed, the repugnance to food that is present may rightly be regarded as a “closed-for-repairs”
sign placed at the entrance of the digestive tract. It should be heeded. Sometimes we 
think
 we want food when we 
are sick, but this is a false desire that, if satisfied,
increases our suffering. I recall a personal experience as a teenager. I suffered with a slight fever,
malaise, foul breath, a bad taste in my mouth and general discomfort. In obedience to my
inclination under the condition I went to bed. But I was hungry or thought I was. I thought I wanted
sardines. I wanted them so badly I could almost taste them. I demanded sardines. My mother didn’t
think sardines would be advisable for a sick boy, but like other youngsters I had learned that if I
protested long enough, my parents would “give in” even against their better judgment. I continued
to demand sardines. Finally my mother sent to a nearby store and purchased a can of sardines. She arranged them on
a dish and brought them to my bedside. I took one small taste and gave the dish back to my mother. 32I found that I did not really want anything. My body wanted no food. Even though I knew nothing of
fasting in those days, I instinctively fasted and was soon well without taking any drugs. I have seen parents employ many means of coercion and persuasion in their endeavors to get
sick infants and children to eat in spite of their refusal. A common mode of persuasion with
children is to bribe them with promises of toys, candies or baseball mitts. “Eat this for mother,”
runs the common plea. “The doctor wants you to eat this. ”
“If you do not eat you can’t get well. ”
It is only ignorance that permits us to browbeat sick children with such false “truisms. ” In
chronic illness the individual may believe he is hungry but his sensations are, in fact, nothing more
than irritations of the digestive tract. These morbid symptoms end when the individual fasts. If the
desire to eat was real indication of the need for food, the symptom pangs would increase as the
fast progressed. The fact that the “hunger” ceases and the patient becomes comfortable is a sure
indication that they have no relation to genuine hunger. The statement sometimes heard that hunger ceases on the third day of the fast implies that true
hunger is present during the first two days of the fast. This is usually not true. It is gastric irritation
that ceases on the second, third or fourth day of the fast. 335
Four Reasons for Fasting
The purposes of fasting are many
 and varied; they range from bodily health factors and weight
reduction to religious concepts and rituals—though the latter are usually for too brief a time to be
considered as serious fasting, generally lasting no longer than a day at most. Weight reduction is certainly a desirable goal, but should it be our only goal. Are there not
other health factors involved in losing weight. Should there not be other clear cut physical and
health benefits obtainable through a worthwhile fast. Dr. Robert Walter, prominent for his work in 
Hygiene,
 was head of the world-famous 
Hygienic
Walter’s Park Sanatorium at Wernersville, Pennsylvania. He states that a moderate “hunger
cure”—as fasting had been termed early German Nature Curists and early 
Hygienists
—is
exceedingly beneficial in a great number of diseases. In understanding the way fasting can help the
human organism let us examine briefly here fundamental areas where total fasting, with the sole
exception of drinking water, can play an important role. We have already begun to explore what
we may call area number one—weight reduction. There can be no question that fasting produces
the quickest, safest and most effective avenue available for weight reduction. But it is important to note that in the cases of overweight individuals, weight reduction is an
added benefit even when not the sole, or even the main reason for the fast. A second reason is what I call physiological compensation, in which the delicate automatic
balances of nature come into play. To expend on one side, nature must conserve on the other. This
time-tested fact applies to all of the operations of living things, including human beings. If you
have the water running in your bath tub and somebody turns on the water in the kitchen sink, the
rate of the flow into the bath tub is immediately diminished. When the water in the kitchen is cut
off, the rate of flow into the bath tub is immediately increased. A similar phenomenon is witnessed in the operation of the body. If food is to be digested, much
blood must flow to the digestive organs and we tend to become sluggish, even to 
fall asleep. If we
force ourselves to do hard work, the process of digestion is practically suspended. Fasting by conserving the energies of the body that are regularly employed in the work of the
digestive system, permits the diversion of these energies to other channels with which to
accomplish other work. Energy saved in one department may be expended in another. A third reason is to secure physiological rest. This is rest of the digestive, glandular,
circulatory, respiratory and nervous systems. In a general sense, the more food one eats, the more
work must be performed by the organs making up these systems; when there is a great reduction in
the amount of food taken, these ogans rest. When no food is taken at all, they rest most of all. It is
not difficult to understand that when no food is eaten, the glands of the mouth and stomach, the
whole digestive tube, the liver and the pancreas rest; it should be equally as easily understood that
the heart and arteries are also relieved of a burden and secure rest. The glands of the body, other
than those that secrete digestive juices, are also permitted to reduce their secretory activities. Respiration is slowed down and the nervous system has less work to do. All of this means rest. There is a theory that the metabolism and inactivation of the fasting man resemble that of the
hibernating animal. It says that only during the prenatal phase of man’s existence is there greater
immobilization of the digestive tract and muscles than during a fast. There is much truth in this
34theory, but we should recognize that the fasting man is not dormant, as is the hibernating animal,
and is not as inactive as is the embryo. Indeed, so far as mind and muscles are concerned the
faster, unless he goes to bed, relaxes his body and poises his mind, may be very active. It is true,
however, that the more closely the faster can approach the inactivity of the prenatal stage of
existence, the more rapid will be his progress. The rejuvenation of the cellular structures will be
in keeping with his inactivity. The fourth reason is the all important matter of elimination. J. H. Tilden, M. D. , who was founder
of the famous Dr. Tilden’s Health School in Denver, Colorado, and edited and published two
magazines and wrote several books, said: “After fifty-five years of sojourning in the wilderness of
medical therapeutics. I am forced to declare, without fear of successful contradiction, that fasting
is the only reliable, specific, therapeutic eliminant known to man. ”
Felix L. Oswald. M.
Fat is the first tissue to be affected.
What is the first tissue to be affected when an organism goes without food?
Fasting is abstaining from food while still having adequate reserves, whereas starving is abstaining from food after the reserves have been exhausted, resulting in vital tissues being sacrificed.
What is the difference between fasting and starving?
The primary reason for the loss of weight is the loss of fat reserves, not the breakdown of essential organs.
What is the primary reason for the loss of weight during a fast?
Fasting does not cure a disease, but rather provides a period of physiological rest, allowing the body to heal itself.
Can fasting cure a disease?
The length of a fast should be determined by the individual's physical state and needs, and should not be arbitrarily set by a predetermined time limit.
What is the best approach to determining the length of a fast?