Originally Posted by dand5
What do you all mean by fast? Do you eat a lot less or just skip breakfast?
What I tried yesterday was just basically just skipping breakfast. I guess I did it to see how it would affect my BP as the day progressed. I had every intention on eating a meal at noon but until then I wanted to monitor my bp. Usually, I have a rise that peaks, it seems, about noon to 2:00 P.M. My bp was about 18 points lower than what it usually would be. I found that quite surprizing. After I ate of course it began going up some like usual. Bp before eating was 130/78. After eating a few hours later it was 141/84.
A true fast is going without food for a period of day or days. It is just drinking water. Believe it or not fasting at one time in history was a very common practice most notably among Church related institutions. It is a long lost practice that ought to be incorporated once in awhile into our lives, if for nothing else but health reasons.
But I think it would be good if one has real health problems like diabetes, or other such problems to consult their doctor beforehand , or do some study. But I can see no problem if one is trying to lower BP and otherwise is in fairly good health to give it a go. That is my opinion.
Let me put it this way. If I had BP that was really high like above the 160,s up into the 200's or so I would make a 2 week fast a serious consideration. But it would be nice if it was a monitored one like the article I provided. Sometimes doing something like this with others is a means of support and a challenge. That's my 2 cents.
But it doesn't mean one cannot try various modifications of fasting to see if it helps their BP.
All in all noone can argue the success. 100% of the individuals had lowered there BP and it looked to have sustained it AFTER 27 weeks of the fast. This is indeed interesting. Well actually 89% had lowered and the other 11% lowered as well but looked to have stopped earlier, so theirs was not quite as low as the others.