What do you think is more effective, doing frequent shorter fasts or longer infrequent fasts.
I have done them both (not long dry fasts however, find my weight drops way too quick for that).
I think there is a push to go longer and longer both for weight loss and for aiding in health issues. I'm interested in the health aiding side of things but I think the same could be applied to both.
Overall, I think shorter and more frequent fasts are actually more beneficial. Easier to manage, far less taxing and more likely to replicate what humans "would have done". Also you are more likely to stick with it even once health has been obtained.
By short I mean 1-3 days.
I haven't included the spiritual side of this because I've never experienced that and am not bothered about it but I'm sure that favours longer fasts.
What are everyone else's opinions?
Answer
In my opinion, I think more frequent shorter fasts are more beneficial. Longer fasts can be very taxing on the body, not to mention that it can be unsustainable and lead to binging afterwards. Shorter fasts are easy and help to reset the body and give the immune system a boost every so often. Plus they are easy to do even while working a full time job
Answer
I do one 36hr dry fast a week, l haven’t changed my eating habits and l dropped 5kg in a month, not only that my scars and smaller stretch marks have nearly all disappeared, l want to try a prolonged one eventually but l’m scared of kidney and gall stones