| There are a number of differences here that should be noted. Firstly, as you keenly note, we need to define terms like fasting. The kind of fasting people are doing for extended periods always includes water, but more than that, for an extended fast, it also includes electrolytes, and sometimes other nutrients. Secondly, 60 days is a very long fast. While people are going to point out cases of people fasting for a year or more, the fact is that those are in the extreme minority. Most people consider a 10 day extended fast to be a very long one. A sixty day fast is far different, and there are studies that show negative effects of very long fasts, rather than "medium length" fasts such as seven days. Third, I think it's a bit of a mistake to conflate a week long fast (what the post is about) with a 60 day fast. Fourthly, most of the people talking about having done extended fasts talk about doing it in the same way one might talk about running a race- with practice. You'll see people talking about one meal a day, then a 24 hour fast, 48 hour, 72 hour, and then a week. That gives the body a chance to adapt to the fasted state. These are health conscious people doing a health conscious thing. Lastly, though, an ulcer isn't caused by fasting. Most ulcers are caused by infection, which was only discovered later in the 1980s. The kidney obstruction could be made worse by dehydration certainly, but it's still not causal. People do need to eat, and extended fasts can be very dangerous, but there's such a world of difference here that I think it's not worth discussing. |
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23432987/