[cpncrunch]

>fasting reliably produces that effect

First, one study doesn't tell us that fasting "reliably" produces this effect. Secondly, if it was a placebo effect then fasting would not reliably produce it. You would likely be able to produce no placebo effect by telling patients that there will very likely be no effect whatsoever on their symptoms.

>But here, since it is immeasurable...is it possible to call it a placebo effect?

If it is a placebo effect, you would probably be able to measure it by testing various other non-fasting diets. The difficulty lies in the inability to have a sham fasting diet, but you could likely mitigate that by telling patients there will likely be no effect on their symptoms from fasting.

[dsabanin]

Placebos work even when you know[1]

[1] http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/placebos-w...

[darawk]

Ya, you're totally right that one study does not prove reliability.

I guess my point is more theoretical. Let's say it was reliable, and let's say that other non-fasting diets didn't produce the effect. Further, let's say that telling them it had no effect didn't prevent it either.

Now, given all that, it's still possible that there is, in some sense, a psychological component (i.e. how you 'feel' when fasting) that causes you to get better in some way. I have always thought this about Airborne and such, for instance. They are total bullshit products that absolutely, categorically do not work. But I drink them when i'm sick anyway, because the effervescence and the flavor feel to me like something that works, so I feel like their placebo effect is better than other things.

I suppose what i'm getting at is that there are some activities/experiences that can engineer better placebo effects than others due to the subjective experience they produce. And I wonder then in what sense is that separable from the thing itself.