[diminoten]

To you and others who are giving their personal experience, you're aware how useless anecdata is when trying to determine general medical advice, right?

I get how you were attracted to my "no one" statement, but think a bit about what I could have possibly meant. Do you think I meant, "LITERALLY NO ONE IN HUMAN HISTORY HAS SUCCESSFULLY FASTED"? Or did I mean, "On average, a person who doesn't eat for a longer period of time will tend to have a lower performance mentally and physically than a person who does eat regularly."? And if you think I meant the latter, why do you believe your personal experience is relevant?

[loeg]

Your earlier comment came across as a pretty literal blanket statement for me, FWIW.

> In no way is fasting healthy … while fasting for more than a day or so at most.

The italicized portions are both qualifiers that suggest / reinforce something like "literally no one in human history has successfully fasted."

If you meant "On average, low blood sugar will cause lower metal and physical performance," just say it. Sarcasm and hyperbole don't come across clearly on the internet. It's much easier and more considerate to write what you mean the first time, rather than writing a hyperbolic and simplistic statement and then retroactively rationalizing it.

[diminoten]

I did write what I meant; there's simply no way, on average, fasting has zero negative side effects. That's what I wrote. The fact that you or others couldn't navigate your way to that conclusion is on you, not me.

And I did want to come across as sarcastic and condescending because it's frankly insulting to others when you claim such outrageous and wrong nonsense on the internet. You deserve sarcasm and negativity if you bring idiocy to a reasonable conversation.