How does one identify "hunger"?

[Jerry Story]

From Ayn Rand, The Virtue Of Selfishness, page 21:

--- [begin quote] ---

A sensation of hunger will tell him that he needs food (if he has learned to identify it as "hunger"), ...

--- [end quote] ---

The question is: how to identify hunger.

This is a perfectly valid question and it is a question that comes under the heading "epistemology". And it does not require special knowledge, only everyday knowledge. (unlike glutamic acid) And it is of relevance to everyone. (again unlike glutamic acid)

Animals have instincts (according to Ayn Rand). Humans must identify hunger by reason.

Probably someone will say, go without food long enough and you will experience hunger and then you will know what hunger is. But experiencing hunger is not the same as identifying it. How can I know whether what I am experiencing is hunger?

Perhaps someone will say, if it goes away upon eating then it is hunger. What if it goes away if I eat and if I don't eat? This is the case with what is called "habit hunger". If one always eats at 12 noon, then the stomach learns to expect food at 12 noon and one experiences "habit hunger" at 12 noon. It goes away 2 hours or so after 12 noon whether one eats or not, and therefore seems to be related to time on the clock and not to need for food.

If hunger is associated with need for food, then why does what most people think is hunger go away after 3 days (or 2-4 days) of total abstinence from food (water only)? How can the need for food go away as a result of not eating?

If hunger is a watering of the mouth, then what about Pavlov's dogs? Is hunger related to the ringing of the bell and not to need for food? Or do they need food because they hear a bell?

If one lives on water only, "hunger" (or whatever it is) typically goes away on the 4th day and does not return until the body's resources are nearly run out. In the case of a healthy normal person, typically "hunger" or whatever it is will return after about 40 days or so. To go beyond this stage is starvation (meaning that the body is living on its structures instead of on reserves). I think probably a case can be made for the proposition that the "hunger" that one experiences at the end of a "complete" fast is true hunger (meaning need for food). But the "hunger" that returns is usually not the same as the "hunger" that went away on the 4th day. The sensations/experiences are usually different. How can this be? Are there two different kinds of hunger? Is the hunger during the first three days not true hunger?

The description made by some people of the "hunger" during the first three days sounds like ...urm.. symptoms of sickness. (Whatsisface says that's exactly what they are, and that's supposed to be good) Is hunger a sickness? The "hunger" after a complete fast is said to be actually pleasant. I have never done a fast until hunger, so I don't know from my own experience. I have done shorter fasts (<=15 days) and the "hunger" coming off them seemed to be free of symptoms of sickness.

Seems even the NHs (who probably know more about fasting than any other group of people, both from experience and from the literature on the subject) are not agreed about the first 3 days.

--- [begin quote] ---

A sensation of hunger will tell him that he needs food (if he has learned to identify it as "hunger"), ...

--- [end quote] ---

The question is: how to identify hunger.

Someone might ask: why is this important? If I eat when I am not hungry then I am faking reality. That's dishonesty. If I don't eat when I am hungry, then I am evading the fact that I am hungry. That's evasion.

Someone might say: don't matter. But that's the Kelley philosophy. Objectivism says: Every IS implies an OUGHT. Being hungry and not being hungry have moral implications.

I would consider doing a complete fast except that for me it's supposed to be contraindicated. Maybe I will eventually do it anyway.

[stephen_speicher]

The question is: how to identify hunger.

Tell you what Jerry. Don't eat anything for 24 hours and then show up at your local Souplantation or Sweet Tomatoes http://www.souplantation.com/ and then report back to us.

Animals have instincts (according to Ayn Rand). 

I think you mean Anthony Rand, third-grade biology teacher at P.S. 122. Indeed Anthony believes that animals have instincts. But, of course, he never actually read Ayn Rand.

I would consider doing a complete fast except that for me it's supposed to be contraindicated.  Maybe I will eventually do it anyway.

Thanks for sharing.

[AMERICONORMAN]

I think hunger for humans is more than just eating something that is not poisonous. I doubt whether someone could fast for forty days and still work to the same capacity as before the fast. If a person can then I am amazed at the person. (I wonder if the legendary Socrates was capable of this). I assume, though, that a construction worker cannot fast for a very long time and refrain from passing out on the site. I don’t know if I would trust a surgeon who went on fast for forty days. I certainly could not read philosophy without eating for too long a time; I think a few days would do it for me.

The human moral life is more than just eating. They are values but for a greater values. I don’t know if I could live or be happy without art and philosophy. My chosen career revolves around these two values. And the career that sustains me, I could not do without tying it to philosophy. I don’t think I could work at either job or remain working at all if I was on a fast for forty days.

I don’t think an independent man can live a happy life without choosing some work that he loves as the activity of his life. Hunger for an independent man would certainly be for the amount of food that will support his career.

Sincerely,

Americo.

P.S. It is no accident that in Romance the intense desire is sometimes connoted by the word “hunger”.

[Jerry Story]

Thanks for sharing. 

The reason why I said that is that I figured someone would tell me (perhaps sarcastically) that I should do a complete fast and thereby find out what hunger is. For me fasting is contraindicated, at least now.

How did Ayn Rand identify hunger? Is this an improper question for this discussion group?

[danielshrugged]

One identifies hunger by the method of concomitant variation: "If the phenomenon being studied varies either directly or inversely with exactly one of a number of possible sources, then it is the cause." Within limits, the lower the fraction of food eaten over time, the hungrier one will be. Most of your objections are answered by my specification: within limits. That the correlation between food/time and hunger changes when one eats either a large or small amount does not change the fact that we can observe that correlation within a normal context.

Edited for word choice

[stephen_speicher]

How did Ayn Rand identify hunger?

I would imagine pretty much in the same manner that most of us did. I'm sure you are not really interested in the role of the hypothalamus in the origination of hunger stimuli moderated by activity of the insular cortex and the prefrontal cortex, but the end result is a hunger sensation that we perceive introspectively. A certain degree of pain or discomfort is a signal for us to pay attention, and if we were alone with no one to teach us things, we would have to literally discover that ingestion of certain nutrients will aleviate the pain or discomfort we feel. Fortunately, we are mostly raised by adults who properly care for us, so it is much easier for us to discover that the nutrients we are given satisfy our need. This pain/pleasure signal mechanism is automatic, but our identification of the underlying cause and the determination of action that we must take, starts with introspection and proceeds with a more detailed focus on elements of external reality.

Is this an improper question for this discussion group?

It is not so much the question, Jerry, as the one who asks it. You have been hanging around Objectivists for, what, at least five years that I know of, and still nothing of value has rubbed off. I first noticed you five years ago when you so graciously, and with such authority, informed us how Harry Binswanger just did not get very far with his book The Biological Basis of Teleological Concepts. Until you informed me, I had not known that Harry missed out on the very essential Law of Action, which included diarhhea as one of its examples.

Ever since then, Jerry, it has been very hard to treat you seriously. Your constant mantra that the entire medical profession is a bunch of quacks, coupled with your fettish for natural hygenics, and your endless quirky schemes (the United Civililized Nations), along with a constant barrage of distortions of Objectivism, makes you in my eyes to be an other-worldly character.

Were you not happy on hpo? I think you got the best audience there. You really should go back there and give them another try, Jerry.

[Jerry Story]

One identifies hunger by the method of concomitant variation: "If the phenomenon being studied varies either directly or inversely with exactly one of a number of possible sources, then it is the cause." Within limits, the lower the fraction of food eaten over time, the hungrier one will be. Most of your objections are answered by my specification: within limits. That the correlation between food/time and hunger changes when one eats either a large or small amount does not change the fact that we can observe that correlation within a normal context.

Edited for word choice

Thanks for the explanation.

In the interest of clarity on the subject, it would be improper of me to not ask the following question:

How does one tell the difference between hunger and drug addiction?

Drug addiction and "withdrawal symptom" seem to have the same concomittant variation as need for food and hunger.

Also the sensations/experiences often associated with hunger (correctly or incorrectly) seem to have some similarity to "withdrawal symptoms". I dug up the following signs (symptoms?) of hunger:

"dull ache"

"uncomfortanble pang or gnawing"

"lassitude and drowsiness"

"faintness"

"depression and a feeling of weakness"

"pangs of hunger"

"hunger pain"

and such like

Are these signs of hunger? Or are they symptoms of sickness? What is the correct response? Eat? Or maybe lie down and keep warm and close eyes and sleep until one feels well enough to be able to eat?

There is another kind of hunger, where all these signs(or symptoms?) are absent, which happens coming off a fast of sufficient length. Are these two different kinds of genuine hunger? Or is one false hunger and the other true hunger?

[Guest jrshep]

Jerry,

How do you know that you're not dreaming right now?

How can you ask about "hunger" and offer so many symptoms which you have to have grasped (identified) yourself in order to ask your questions, and yet find it so bewildering as to just how you should go about identifying "hunger"? You couldn't ask your questions about hunger without having some conception of what hunger is. How did you do that?

Generally, when I'm hungry, I eat something, and that does the trick! If for some unknown (to me) reason it doesn't do the trick, then I may start to get concerned. If I do, I'll seek out a doctor who can help me to understand what my problem is and what to do about it.

If you're not sure what is causing certain symptoms, you should go see a doctor, not to follow blindly, but so that they will enlighten you as to what is actually causing your problems. And get a second opinion, or three, or more, until you're satisfied with the answers, satisfied that they are in fact accurate, true. Mostly realize that an expert is only an expert if he knows what he's doing. If he does, he should be able to convince you of that, and what is wrong, without you having to become a doctor yourself. That's the whole beauty of specialization of labor.

John

[AndrewSternberg]

When I feel hungry, doing this always helps:

After all, any resulting pain is generally conceded to be a sign that the hunger is subsiding.

[BlueWind]

Humans must identify hunger by reason.

This is absolutely incorrect, we know huger because it is automatic knowledge.

There are certain things the human body is hard wired to experience and automatically understand. Sensations like pain, pressure and heat all have known and identified biological components throughout our bodies and structures inside of our brains. These are pre-rational functions and no one has to tell you what these things are: your body already knows.

An example would be the following: "When a person pulls his hand from a hot iron, it is often done before he is aware of the heat. The reflex of pulling the hand away occurs before the awareness of the heat itself. This reflex behavior involves both the central and the peripheral systems. Reflex behavior of this kind is automatic and requires no learning. The neural activity takes place in the spinal cord and in the peripheral nervous system." link

In the same way we are hard-wired for pain and heat we are also hard wired for hunger, you can read more about the central nervous system here.

[Guest jrshep]

This is absolutely incorrect, we know huger because it is automatic knowledge.

Actually, the experience of hunger, like the experience of pain from touching a hot stove, is automatic or hard-wired, but the knowledge, the identification, of "hunger," as well as it's cause and solution is not automatic.

Not every question that Jerry asks is inappropriate, but perhaps inappropriate here. Mostly, it's just not possible to diagnose his problems and offer solutions here. Even were there a doctor here, I doubt that he would attempt to do so.

The process of conceptualizing hunger, of grasping what hunger is and what to do about it, is the same process as for any such identifications. Reason.

[Jerry Story]

How can you ask about "hunger" and offer so many symptoms which you have to have grasped (identified) yourself in order to ask your questions, and yet find it so bewildering as to just how you should go about identifying "hunger"? You couldn't ask your questions about hunger without having some conception of what hunger is. How did you do that?

I assume that hunger is a sensation that indicates a need for food. The question is not how we know whether we have a sensation, but how we know that the sensation indicates a need for food. The first is automatic; the second is learned.

Generally, when I'm hungry, I eat something, and that does the trick!

I do not see that as proof that it is hunger. It does not distinguish between hunger and drug addiction. A drug addict's "craving" will go away upon another dose of crystal meth (or whatever). Does this prove a need for crystal meth?

If you're not sure what is causing certain symptoms, you should go see a doctor,

I am not talking about a personal problem, but a question about epistemology. Ayn Rand did mention this, but without going into detail. I thought this would be an appropriate topic under the heading of epistemology. I tried to pick a topic that definitely is relevant to Objectivism and at the same time is of possible interest to a large number of people. Everyone eats, right?

Here is a discussion about hunger:

http://tinyurl.com/6zaht

[AMERICONORMAN]

When did YOU learn that hunger was hunger for food? It must have been pretty young which is why the question seems difficult. And if no one taught you to eat, would you ever learn? You probably want to know how it was for primeval man when he learned how to eat. Perhaps early man felt hunger but had a heightened sense of smell that connected his feeling to the rabbit in the bushes, for example. This is one of the obvious yet forgotten glories of man, that we’ve reached the stage where food is not a grave dilemna—now we just have to find a cure for cancer and AIDS.

Now if the specific feeling of hunger that we feel, does not have to be for nourishing food, what will be the philosophical implications of that "fact"?

Americo.

[Guest jrshep]

I assume that hunger is a sensation that indicates a need for food.  The question is not how we know whether we have a sensation, but how we know that the sensation indicates a need for food.  The first is automatic; the second is learned.

Here is a discussion about hunger:

http://tinyurl.com/6zaht

I don't know, Jerry. From reading your (?) "discussion" of "hunger," I'd have to conclude that "hunger" is a lie that's been fed (pun intended) to us by pro-Capitalist, profit-seeking propagandists hell-bent on duping us into spending all our wealth on their food products instead of paying you to guide us in fasting for a couple of months at a time. It must be a lie, an outrage. Surely we could all live healthily and happily on a few meals a year, fasting months between our succulent meals of vegetables. Think what that would do to the food industries if this "big lie" is ever revealed for what it is.

Just why is it that you are looking to Miss Rand and Objectivism? What view are you hoping to find a moral sanction for?

As to your question, you refer to real hunger as opposed to the various misidentifications of "hunger." Why don't you reveal to us just how you went about identifying "true hunger" as opposed to the morbid experiences of unhealthy subjects?

[Jerry Story]

I don't know, Jerry. From reading your (?) "discussion" of "hunger," I'd have to conclude that "hunger" is a lie that's been fed (pun intended) to us by pro-Capitalist, profit-seeking propagandists hell-bent on duping us into spending all our wealth on their food products instead of paying you to guide us in fasting for a couple of months at a time. It must be a lie, an outrage. Surely we could all live healthily and happily on a few meals a year, fasting months between our succulent meals of vegetables. Think what that would do to the food industries if this "big lie" is ever revealed for what it is.

That would be a false conclusion.

Just why is it that you are looking to Miss Rand and Objectivism? What view are you hoping to find a moral sanction for?

What I'm looking for is an Objectivist answer to the question. How to learn to identify hunger.

As to your question, you refer to real hunger as opposed to the various misidentifications of "hunger." Why don't you reveal to us just how you went about identifying "true hunger" as opposed to the morbid experiences of unhealthy subjects?

I assume that Objectivists can explain better than I can how to distinguish between true hunger and false hunger.

Maybe it's such as easy question to answer that nobody here takes it seriously. But in ITOE, 2nd edition, Ayn Rand takes seriously a similar question about the color blue.

[Guest jrshep]

What I'm looking for is an Objectivist answer to the question.  How to learn to identify hunger.

I assume that Objectivists can explain better than I can how to distinguish between true hunger and false hunger.

Maybe it's such as easy question to answer that nobody here takes it seriously.  But in ITOE, 2nd edition, Ayn Rand takes seriously a similar question about the color blue.

Well, did you have some particular problem with what Miss Rand had to say about forming the concept of "blue" and the need of defining it ostensibly given that it is a concept of sensory experience?

If not, can't you simply apply the same understanding to the experience of "hunger"? Or even experiences such as: "pain" or "pleasure" etc.?

Conceptual identification is the conceptualization of identity, the mental grasp in conceptual form of the evidence (to us via our senses) of existence.

If one is color blind and can't see or experience the color blue, one will never be able to grasp or form the concept "blue." One could memorize the word, and one can utter it, but one doesn't know what one is referring to in reality, as do those who can identify the concept of "blue" because they can experience it. Without that fundamental experience of "blue" one cannot form or grasp the concept "blue."

This same process applies to experiences like "hunger," and "pain," and "pleasure," etc. We experience them, and we conceptualize them, isolating them by virtue of their similarities from other, different but commensurable, experiences, and uniting them in the form of a concept, seeing each instance of the experience as a unit or instance of that kind of experience, as a unit of the concept of "hunger," or "pain," or "pleasure," etc. If we couldn't or didn't experience them, we'd be in the same boat as a person who can't experience the color blue. No amount of knowledge and experience by others could ever convey to us what those experiences are, what they are referring to by the concepts of "hunger," or "pain," or "pleasure," etc. We would simply be "in the dark" with respect to those experiences.

Your basic problem is that you're equivocating on the concept of "hunger." On the one hand, you're referring to the experience of hunger, and on the other hand, you are referring to the biological need for nourishment in the form of food and just how that relates to our experience of hunger, how it causes that experience, how that experience varies over time with the lack of food, etc.

One doesn't need to know all there is to know and understand about the nutritional requirements of our existence and health in order to grasp and identify the experience of hunger conceptually as "hunger." This is just the same as with the concept of "blue" not requiring that one first understand all there is to know about the requirements of the visual experience of the color, "blue," before one can grasp and identify the experience of blue. (In fact, without being able to form the concepts, one could never learn anything more about them. Identification does not require omniscience. To study and learn more and more about the experience of seeing blue or feeling hunger, one has to have formed the concepts of "blue" and "hunger.")

And, one does not need higher level concepts to define "hunger." One defines "hunger" (or "blue") to oneself by pointing to, as it were, instances of one's own experiences of "hunger," or the implied or expressed similar experiences of others.

Whatever else is learned about the phenomena of hunger will not alter the concept, the conceptual identification, of "hunger" that one forms very early on in one's growth.

[Jerry Story]

I make a distinction between:

1. the sensation 2. the need for food

The question is how to make the connection.

First one must prove a need for food. We can't prove that (yet) by sensation, because we are trying to prove the connection. There is only one way I know to prove need for food (if we have not learned to identify the sensation with need for food). That is by reaching the skeletal condition. Maybe there can be a need for food before the skeletal stage, but it's not clear to me how one would prove it (if one starts off not knowing how to identify the sensation as hunger). When the need for food is proved, then one is able to observe whatever sensation is associated with it. That becomes a hypothesis. Furthur testing will tend to confirm or deny this hypothesis. That's the scientific method, right?

Maybe it's too much trouble to do all this by oneself, so we learn about the experiences of many people who have gone thru the process, plus whatever experiences we have had. Put it all together and maybe come up with something.

The above described process seems to suggest the conclusion that there is a difference between true hunger and "false hunger" (which is not really hunger but only seems to be).

Perhaps it is possible to experience true hunger and false hunger both at the same time.

I assume that a healthy person experiences true hunger regularly. But it has been said that most people never experience true hunger ever in their lives. I find that hard to believe.

Many years ago, coming off a 15 day fast, I thought I experienced something much like how Dr. S. describes true hunger. Did you ever see a dog foaming at the mouth with saliva while you are opening a can of dog food? I had a similar copious flow of saliva. I had no sensation in the stomach, no suffering, none of the negative things. A feeling of well-being. I had a keenness of senses of taste and smell. On the 10th day of the fast my sense of smell was so keen that if I had not experienced it I would not have believed it. But a fast of only 15 days is too short to prove much.

Somehow I doubt that Ayn Rand had fasting in mind when she wrote that we must learn to identify hunger. But she must have had something in mind.

[Guest jrshep]

I make a distinction between:

1. the sensation  2. the need for food

The question is how to make the connection.

If I'm not mistaken, the red wire goes to the contact labeled "A," and the blue wire goes to the other contact, "B." Be careful though; I accept no responsibilities if you get shocked.

First one must prove a need for food.  We can't prove that (yet) by sensation, because we are trying to prove the connection.  There is only one way I know to prove need for food (if we have not learned to identify the sensation with need for food). That is by reaching the skeletal condition.  Maybe there can be a need for food before the skeletal stage, but it's not clear to me how one would prove it (if one starts off not knowing how to identify the sensation as hunger).  When the need for food is proved, then one is able to observe whatever sensation is associated with it.  That becomes a hypothesis.  Furthur testing will tend to confirm or deny this hypothesis.  That's the scientific method, right?

Err, Right, I think.

Maybe it's too much trouble to do all this by oneself, so we learn about the experiences of many people who have gone thru the process, plus whatever experiences we have had.  Put it all together and maybe come up with something.

This is where having a lot of like-minded friends who would be willing to join you in an extremely long fast might prove to be a lot of fun.

The above described process seems to suggest the conclusion that there is a difference between true hunger and "false hunger" (which is not really hunger but only seems to be).

Perhaps it is possible to experience true hunger and false hunger both at the same time.

That's true and false.

I assume that a healthy person experiences true hunger regularly.  But it has been said that most people never experience true hunger ever in their lives.  I find that hard to believe.

No assumptions, please. This here is science!

Many years ago, coming off a 15 day fast, I thought I experienced something much like how Dr. S. describes true hunger.  Did you ever see a dog foaming at the mouth with saliva while you are opening a can of dog food?  I had a similar copious flow of saliva.  I had no sensation in the stomach, no suffering, none of the negative things.  A feeling of well-being.  I had a keenness of senses of taste and smell.  On the 10th day of the fast my sense of smell was so keen that if I had not experienced it I would not have believed it. But a fast of only 15 days is too short to prove much.

You've got a keen sense of adventure. Hey, have you every seen that proverbial light in a near death experience?

Somehow I doubt that Ayn Rand had fasting in mind when she wrote that we must learn to identify hunger.  But she must have had something in mind.

You think?

Jerry, never in my life would I have thought that I would actually recommend that someone turn their life over to Jesus Christ, accept Him as their lord and savior, but by God, I do now suggest that you consider doing so.

Hey, I've got a question for you: Do you know what it feels like to have to pee really, really badly? Do you think it's possible to identify such an experience? How about making a connection between it and the need to relieve one's bladder?

Looking forward to more connections...

[stephen_speicher]

Jerry, never in my life would I have thought that I would actually recommend that someone turn their life over to Jesus Christ, accept Him as their lord and savior, but by God, I do now suggest that you consider doing so.

Will you be paid a commission?

Looking forward to more connections...

You don't know the half of it, John. You've only scratched the surface with Jerry.

[Guest jrshep]

You don't know the half of it, John. You've only scratched the surface with Jerry. 

With the image of Jerry purposefully starving (fasting) himself to the point of frothing at the mouth like a dog at the sight of food, yet even then still dubious as to whether it is possible for him to confidently identify "hunger" or "true hunger" without further starving himself to the point of becoming a skeleton, to the point of near-certain death, I have no desire to scratch below the surface I've already seen.

[Guest jrshep]

Jerry,

For whatever it's worth, I don't seriously suggest that you become a Christian. Instead, I suggest that you simply take care of yourself.

I know next to nothing about you and have no experience in "fasting," so perhaps I just don't "speak your language" and am confused by just what it was you were seeking.

Personally, I'm not interested in fasting nor in learning first-hand just how long I could possibly go without food, or what the experience would be like through the many days of self-imposed starvation ("fasting").

I can see how such knowledge might prove important in certain extreme contexts, but if I anticipated such a context, and I thought I needed to know my limits, my first source of information would not be to perform experiments on myself, but to look for information already available. Only were I to anticipate that first-hand knowledge of my own limits of endurance (without food or water, etc.) were going to be critical would I put myself though periods of self-induced starvations or "fasting." The only other context I could see being interested in fasting would be on the advice of a physican. Even then, I'd have to be convinced that it was called for.

On the flip-side, I'm not interested in seeing just how obese I can become either.

As to whatever epistemological questions you have, whatever you're trying to identify (conceptualize), you would follow the same procedure that Miss Rand explains in ITOE. Concept formation is concept formation regardless of the data one is working with.

Best wishes.

[Capleton]

Many years ago, coming off a 15 day fast, I thought I experienced something much like how Dr. S. describes true hunger. Did you ever see a dog foaming at the mouth with saliva while you are opening a can of dog food? I had a similar copious flow of saliva. I had no sensation in the stomach, no suffering, none of the negative things.

After-all the abuse the body essentially gives up on trying to convince you to make some macaroni and cheese. If you walk on rocks bare feet every day for a month the pain that you felt one the first day would not be present when the month expires. Of course, this is because of thickening of the skin in the affected areas of the body. The stomach acts differently after being deprive of food for extending periods of time.

[Halsey]

From birth we identify hunger from the emptiness in our stomache that is only cured by a draught of mother's milk or after 3 days of fasting. The fact that our body creates sickness symptoms during the initial hunger indicates that our nature deems it healthiest that we indulge in the intial hunger as opposed to waiting for the hunger to set in after 40 days of fasting. That being said I think that the later hunger that comes after 40 days of fasting is somewhat of a last resort for our body to tell us to feed. However, our body does seem to naturally build up stores of fat that may allow us to fast. Does anyone know of any studies showing whether or not people with much excess fat can fast longer than those who have less excess fat? I don't think the fat that builds up on us contains much nutrients to sustain, but it may still be enough to allow for longer fasting. How long could a person last if they ate just one or two days out of each month (assuming they gorged themselves)? What foods build up the best reserves for our body to use during fasting? If humans mostly consumed food ideal to create reserves for fasting then could we adapt to eating as often as just a couple or few times per month? Obviously it'd have to be a gradual evolution, but it'd be an interesting study.

[Jerry Story]

After-all the abuse the body essentially gives up on trying to convince you to make some macaroni and cheese. If you walk on rocks bare feet every day for a month the pain that you felt one the first day would not be present when the month expires. Of course, this is because of thickening of the skin in the affected areas of the body. The stomach acts differently after being deprive of food for extending periods of time.

About "abuse": The hunger mechanism can be "abused" without fasting, by eating a small amount each day for a long time. Hunger (assuming that's what it is) does not quit from this "abuse". It seems that something else happens on the 4th day of a fast. I offer the following two theories:

1. The body figures this [insert cuss language] guy is not going to feed me, so there is no point in being hungry.

2. After both the stomach and the small intestine are empty, they cease to act as organs of digestion and start to help with removal of waste. This is from Dr. Moser. If this is true, then it would not make sense for the body to want food while this is happening.

Hunger does come back fully, thereby showing that the "abuse" does not permanently destroy the hunger mechanism.

The stomach is not abused by fasting. The stomach can be abused by overeating, by eating foods that are hard to digest, by eating bad food combinations, etc. During a fast, the stomach gets a rest and recovers from abuse.

Macaroni and cheese would not be the best foods to eat on the first day of a fast of any length. Fasts must be broken properly.

[Jerry Story]

The fact that our body creates sickness symptoms during the initial hunger indicates that our nature deems it healthiest that we indulge in the intial hunger as opposed to waiting for the hunger to set in after 40 days of fasting.

If this sickness is caused by abstinence from food, then why does it go away upon furthur abstinence from food?

When a drug addict quits a drug, or when a heavy smoker quits smoking, or when a heavy drinker of alcohol quits alcohol, they tend to experience what is called "withdrawal". ("Withdrawal" is the commonly used word, but perhaps it is misleading. There is a reason for the "withdrawal", based on a certain unpopular paradigm.) Even in the case of a heavy coffee drinker, quitting coffee (and everything else that has caffiene in it) can result in a headache. The "symptoms" (as I facetiously called them) during the first 3 days of a fast (and some beyond) seem to be "withdrawal" from bad eating habits. People with no bad eating habits tend to not experience this, or not as much. That is why I asked the question: what is the difference between hunger and drug addiction?

One difference seems to be: True hunger is pleasant (at least according to Shelton); false hunger and "withdrawal" are unpleasant.

When I read Ayn Rand's statement that one must learn to identify hunger, I thought maybe Objectivists could elaborate and explain the difference between true hunger and false hunger. Maybe not.

  That being said I think that the later hunger that comes after 40 days of fasting is somewhat of a last resort for our body to tell us to feed.

I'm not sure about this. Perhaps the body has a different agenda during a fast, which is incompatiable with eating. When resources are low, then it changes its agenda. But perhaps true hunger can return BEFORE resources are low IF its agenda (healing, waste removal, etc.) is completed before the 40 days or so. I don't know. If this happens, apparently it is rare.

Does anyone know of any studies showing whether or not people with much excess fat can fast longer than those who have less excess fat?

There are cases of individuals who have fasted for ridiculous lengths of time such as 120 days, without harm to health. Normally a person loses something in the order of about a pound a day. I read of a case where, due to slow metabolism, the person lost about 1/4 of a pound a day.

Shelton (who supervised about 40,000 fasts) says that in his experience, fat people fast worse than normal people. He seems to think this is at least partly psychological, they like food too much. But also, fat people, tho they have more reserve of calories, do not necessarily have more reserve of the other nutrients.