[leocassarani]

> And probably good for you - it means your body is finally getting rid of some stuff it should have gotten rid of before and didn't.

That sounds like the sort of pseudo-scientific, unsubstantiated nonsense you hear all the time from New Age healer types. Do you have a source to back up your claim?

[anthonyb]

It's ketosis from ketones being produced as a byproduct of converting fat into glucose. Nothing to do with toxins.

[beagle3]

Sounds reasonable. Can you explain why "acetone breath" only happens to some of the faster, and never (AFAIK) more than once per fast, or other than in the beginning? If it was as simple as you describe, it should be very consistent or completely random.

p.s: I don't see anyone mentioning toxins before you did

[anthonyb]

I think it depends on how much glucose and carbohydrates you're getting in your diet. Your body needs a minimum level to survive (eg. for brain function) and if it doesn't get it, it converts fat. So if you're on a low carb diet, but getting at least that bare minimum, you won't get ketosis. Something like that, anyway.

You were the one who started it:

> your body is finally getting rid of some stuff it should have gotten rid of

Sounds like woo-woo toxin theory to me. There are fat-soluble toxins, but I doubt they'd be enough to make you sick or smell bad.

[beagle3]

> I think it depends on how much glucose and carbohydrates you're getting in your diet.

Let me rephrase the question, as apparently it wasn't clear:

Most instances of fasting (specific time + specific instance) do not get acetone breath at all.

Some instances of fasting do get acetone breath, but if they do, it's usually only for a couple of days near the beginning of the fast (usually starting around 2nd day and ending before the 4th day), even if the fast goes on for 3 weeks.

Your explanation does not seem to make this dichotomy possible - it seems to imply an all-or-nothing situation (for a specific instance). Can you extend your description to accommodate this observation? [Note: based on personally collected set of anecdotes - I couldn't find any rigorous collection of this data]

> Sounds like woo-woo toxin theory to me.

I specifically avoided "toxins" in this reply (but not in others) because toxin theory is not well defined, and can thus easily be ridiculed to death. If you define it more properly, (e.g. caffeine "detox"), it is exactly as described, it does make you feel sick. Technically, caffeine is poisonous (as is alcohol) - it's just that in small doses, we as a specie seem to like the effect it produces.

[anthonyb]

I'm not sure what you mean by an "instance", but there will likely be variations in how quickly people respond to metabolism, and also depends on what you're eating during the fast.

One possible mechanism is that the muscles of the people fasting are more able (either through genes or exercise) to burning fat, meaning that you need to convert less fat into glucose. I'm not a biochemist (I've mainly read Good calories, bad calories plus various primal/low carb blogs) but it seems pretty straightforward (fat -> fatty acids -> acetyl-CoA -> ketones): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketosis

Feeling sick on a caffeine detox is likely to just be withdrawal, and/or the "low-carb flu".

[beagle3]

> I'm not sure what you mean by an "instance"

I defined it earlier: specific person, at a specific fasting period (by which I meant contiguous period).

> also depends on what you're eating during the fast.

I don't think we're talking about the same thing. "fast" says "what you're eating" is nothing.

[beagle3]

No, I do not have a source to substantiate it; I'm not sure what the study would be to look for. It is based, however, on personal experience and experience of other people I know (disappearing of bad breath coincides with other very positive and welcome changes, like injuries that were healing very slowly starting to heal at an amazing pace, disappearance of snoring, and similar things).

Just a question - would you have reacted the same if I wrote "it isn't bad for you to eat 20 eggs a day", or "eating cholesterol isn't bad for you"? because both of these "accepted wisdoms" (limit egg consumption; dietary cholesterol is bad for you) are unsubstantiated nonsense you hear from everyone (laymen, nutritions, doctors), with no study to support them. And yet they are almost never challenged.

[irahul]

> Just a question - would you have reacted the same if I wrote "it isn't bad for you to eat 20 eggs a day", or "eating cholesterol isn't bad for you"? because both of these "accepted wisdoms" (limit egg consumption; dietary cholesterol is bad for you) are unsubstantiated nonsense you hear from everyone (laymen, nutritions, doctors), with no study to support them. And yet they are almost never challenged.

I would have either asked you for citation, or did my own research. But even if I haven't, two wrongs don't a right make. People are biased, and selectively accept garbage. Unsubstantiated nonsense is garbage, irrespective of its acceptance by people who know nothing about it and are accepting things on what makes them feel good.

[beagle3]

> Unsubstantiated nonsense is garbage, irrespective of its acceptance by people who know nothing about it and are accepting things on what makes them feel good.

That's true, and describes 99% of what people believe. It's just that I never see any of the mainstream proved-wrong beliefs challenged on HN - they either get a response like "no, that's wrong, and here is a reference", or accepted as gospel. Not surprising, really.

No one is saying two wrongs make one right. I clearly stated that I don't have a reference anyone can check.