Interesting info on the history of fasting, thanks for sharing. Does that mean that my speculation on the lack of writing on the subject of fasting in the 1800′s to the mid-1900′s is close to the mark?

As to your second two paragraphs: I suppose we could probably have an interesting discussion about what constitutes “real” hunger, but what I meant when I was talking about being “truly hungry” is your basic hunger pangs, which I assume are God-given indicators that it’s time for your body to eat. In my view that’s something different than starvation (when the muscles are being consumed – I would in fact term that “starvation”, not “real hunger”), and also different from what I’ll call “scheduled” hunger pangs (a state of being in which those of us who’ve grown up in a culture of “three square meals a day” experience at what we call breakfast time, lunchtime, and suppertime, eating whether we really need it or not.) My eating habits right now are based on: 1-eating when I have hunger pangs. 2-eating slowly so my body has time to tell my brain that it’s had enough. 3-eating what my body tells me that I need.

On the other hand, in my extended fast during college, I don’t remember hunger pangs of any sort after day 3 or 4, even up to the very end of the fast. But it was a long time ago, so time may be making my memory a little fonder than it should be. If that were indeed the case that I had no more hunger pangs after day 4, would that mean that all of our hunger pangs, whether “real” or “scheduled” are simply conditioned into us by our environment?

Essentially, my question to you would be – Do you think that it will be harder for me in future fasts to put down what I call “real hunger pangs” vs. putting down what I call “scheduled hunger pangs”? And does the answer to that question change if we consider whether we are asking it from a spiritual standpoint or an emotional standpoint or a physical standpoint?

What do you think?

Fasters were often the subject of freakshows for this reason because they knew that they could easily last on only water for several weeks, defying common medical convention (cf. Kafka’s “The Hunger Artist”).

I would imagine, though, even with your new eating habits you’d still find fasting pretty easy. The reason is mathematical. Doctors estimate that for reasonably healthy people (those with a “healthy” BMI of 20 or higher) up to 40% of gross body weight could be shed before entering into starvation (ie *real* hunger). Even people who go for forty days on water alone only average about one pound of weight loss a day since their fairly sedentary existence during this time means that they only expend about 2000 calories of energy a day when one pound of body fat = 3,500 calories.

“Real hunger” can be deceptive also. When doing a long fast (2 weeks or more) it can just mean that your body is done detoxing/healing and expects you to resume eating again (as it is with animals). This can be especially hard if you’re still around food and being stimulated by its sights and smells. I call this the second hump. If you get over it, you’ll be cruising again until your body starts wanting to eat muscle tissue.

That’s more than my two cents though!

*Just a side note here — you might not want to fully endorse the Weigh Down Workshop. Apparently the leader lady has gone off the deep-end. I do it because of the nutritional aspect of it and the success I’ve had through the actual eating part. I don’t think you are endorsing it, but I just want to throw that out there just in case someone gives you are hard time.