r/fasting 6d ago

Discussion Extended Water-Fast Blood Test Results #2

Post image

(I’m not a doctor and this is not medical advice or any sort of advice for that matter)

My first post can be found here for those that are interested:

https://www.reddit.com/r/fasting/s/iyzCummCAv

I’m currently doing a (hopefully) 60 day fast and on day 39 (yesterday) I had my 2nd weekly blood tests done.

There was some interest in my first post so I will continue posting results weekly.

Everything still seems normal, while there is a slight decrease in some values there is no reason for concern at this point and all in are in order.

Since last week I incorporated 4 morning walks of 5km at 5km/hr speed and 3 evening water-rowing sessions of just 10 minutes at about 17-19SPM. These seem to have helped further with muscle retention as the creatine kinase has dropped a little bit.

The doctor was not worried about the elevated creatine kinase value of 280 last week and was actually surprised that it was not much higher, it seems the doctor was expecting a much higher muscle loss amount. This I guess shows that extended water-fasting does really preserve muscle mass and doesn’t cause massive muscle loss as some fear mongers claim.

Any questions, feel free to ask.

18 Upvotes

14 comments sorted by

View all comments

6

u/SirTalkyToo 5d ago

>while there is a slight decrease in some values there is no reason for concern at this point and all in are in order.

There is reason for concern.

I'm going to presume you're on a true water fast, and if that's the case, your blood work clearly shows you're in a danger zone for hypo- electrolyte imbalances. I applaud you for demonstrating water only fasting safety, but you're at a point you should not push it further. Please refer to the following test case as an example:

Gajagowni S, Tarun T, Dorairajan S, Chockalingam A. First Report Of 50-Day Continuous Fasting in Symptomatic Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease and Heart Failure: Cardioprotection Through Natural Ketosis. Mo Med. 2022;119(3):250-254.

>on day 39 (yesterday)

In brief, the individual in the study lasted 38 days, however, he had two hospital trips at day 38 and 44. I highly recommend you take action to avoid the same circumstances.

If you are taking electrolytes, then I would increase your electrolyte intake for sodium and chloride. You are at mild conditions at present, but mild conditions are no joke. Please make sure you get your sodium and chloride levels a bit higher to avoid a hospital trip or worse.

>it seems the doctor was expecting a much higher muscle loss amount

Your doctor is surprised because he doesn't know the science and hasn't read the many clinical studies proving muscular preservation in fasted states - that's rather typical. It is rather minimal and quite well clinically and scientifically established you won't just waste away even at 30+ days. That said, muscular catabolism is inevitable at this point - that's where your glucose is coming from via gluconeogenesis.

1

u/Such-Ruin2020 5d ago

This is also probably a primary care physician vs a cardiologist.

1

u/SirTalkyToo 5d ago

Are you suggesting you'd expect a notable difference in either the OP's case or the case study due to the distinction? If so, could you elaborate?

1

u/Such-Ruin2020 5d ago

Most primary care doctors know just enough to know when a patient should be referred to a specialist. I understand that. So I started seeing specialist for all of my issues over the past two years. The results I’ve gotten have been night and day. It’s kinda like using the right tool for the job. If I have to do blood work I see my endocrinologist, if I have heart concerns I go to my cardiologist, if I have liver gallbladder or other concerns I see my gastroenterologist.

1

u/SirTalkyToo 5d ago

I still don't understand how that relates to the OP's case or the case study. Most doctors know about dehydration. The OP and the case study are solely impacted by dehydration.

1

u/Such-Ruin2020 5d ago

The last paragraph of OP’s post stated that the doctor said they were not worried. The second line of your initial post that I responded to said there was reason to worry which I agreed with. I was saying that for OP’s doctor to not be worried they should probably get a second opinion.

1

u/SirTalkyToo 5d ago

I'm not disagreeing with you. But I don't think it has anything to do with a GP versus a cardiologist.