Fasting introduction; how to water fast for multiple days

 

shou / shu pu'er is best for fasting, very mild on your stomach

This topic came up in online discussion recently, one that I've written quite a bit about here.  Earlier posts were never really designed as a short introduction and how-to, so to supplement that other discussion I'll write that out here.  To be clear I might have only fasted for a total of 60 days or so, so I'm definitely no expert, really only getting started myself.  

Before getting into that I think a couple of preliminary factors apply:

1.  Why fast?

That discussion was about potential anti-aging benefits, and I guess that is one reason.  I've almost entirely reversed my experience of greying hair, probably from this input, over the course of the first year, or maybe less.  Of course I didn't take up fasting for that reason.  It is claimed to reduce risk of severe illnesses, especially cancer and diabetes, and it was partly about that.  But who knows about that, really.

It's also supposed to improve energy level, especially metabolic flexibility, use of internal fat for metabolism.  And to improve mental clarity, which I guess could've happened, but it's hard to track.  And it's hard to separate causes; I've been exercising more than ever and eating a better diet since I started fasting, about 2 1/2 years ago.  

Of course people also fast for weight loss, but that often may not work as well as expected.  I think my metabolism may have slowed slightly, related to fasting practices, and I've gained a few pounds in that 2 1/2 years.  It could just be muscle mass gain; I am exercising quite a bit, running 20 miles per week most weeks, swimming more than ever, and dabbling in pickleball most recently.

a picture from my running route this week; it's nice here, in Honolulu

2.  Are there risks?

There are risks related to almost everything, including fasting.  In general it's accepted as very safe to fast, by fasting practitioners, but it's probably not safe to fast for 3 days or longer without supplementing electrolytes (sodium, potassium, and magnesium).  Low levels of those will cause low energy level, headaches, muscle cramps, brain fog, dizziness, and problems sleeping.  

How much to supplement, and in what form, is quite complicated.  You can't take pills to supplement salts (what those are), because the volume is too high, and any type of tablet form could become stuck to the lining of your stomach and cause a problem.  Magnesium might be the exception to that; you only need to supplement about 400 mg a day of that, versus 1 to 2 grams of the other two (with that requirement varying by different factors).

I definitely wouldn't recommend ramping up fasting practices quickly; it would be better to give your body time to adjust to the new experiences.  Some degree of hunger experience is normal, of course, and also disrupted energy level and mental focus.  After 2 or 3 trials of an extended fast all of that subsides quite a bit, and your mental clarity actually improves, energy level is quite consistent, even high.  Later hunger experience takes on a completely different form, much reduced in intensity.

This isn't a comprehensive listing of risks.  Specific pre-existing conditions could connect with more serious risks.  In case of any concerns consulting a doctor would be best.

General approach

There's not so much to it; you supplement electrolytes, drink plenty of water, and don't eat.  Most people will consume coffee, tea, or tisanes (herb teas), and some will drink diet sodas, while others won't.  Anything containing next to no calories won't break a fast.  Something like adding lemon slices to water might constitute a grey area; there is some calorie input in that, so most people who fast wouldn't do this, but it probably wouldn't change much.  Discussion of bone broth as an input comes up; if that contains any calories, as it generally would, that would break the fast.  I won't take vitamin C tablets that contain 10 calories, typically, but I suppose in a special case I might make an exception, if my throat felt a little sore, for example.

The concern isn't necessarily the idea of pure fasting, instead that ingesting any calories could trigger hunger response and digestive system activity, even when that's as limited as a cough drop.  It's as well to err on the lower side.  Some people would continue taking multi-vitamins, and other supplements, and some see it as a good time to take a break from those, as something along the line of a "detox," a concept typically not utilized by most in discussion of fasting, per my experience.

To begin fasting one might do well to employ a staged approach, trying out limited period eating first (within a 4 hour window, for example), then 24 hour fasts, on to two days, and so on.  There is no need to try 3 to 4 days on an early attempt.  I did, but I'm communicating this to help others learn from my mistakes.  Experience of hunger over the first 48 hours is severe, and it doesn't decrease much over the next 2 or 3 days.  Your body can adjust to use body fat as an effective energy source, which is very readily available, there just for that purpose, but you need to condition yourself to do so.

How to supplement electrolytes

This is a lot more complicated than it probably first seems.  A first inclination is to buy a pre-mixed, flavored, pre-measured packet, like LMNT products.  That could work.  Even using this approach someone should consult a decent reference about daily requirements in relation to fasting, because the included levels may not be optimized for that.  

This Reddit fasting sub wiki could be helpful.  I think that recommendation range is a bit high, extending up to 6 grams a day of sodium and 4.7 grams of potassium.  My guess is that few people could tolerate anywhere near those amounts.  Everyone would need to experiment to see what works best for them anyway, probably starting much lower in the range.  Their magnesium recommendation of 300-400 mg per day seems about right, and that may be somewhat universally applicable.  The low end of the range they recommend, on the order of a gram a day for both sodium and potassium, might work for a starting point.  Note that this would be the weight of the sodium and potassium in the related compounds, not the amount of total salt, including the "chloride" or whatever else.

It's possible to use very common, inexpensive sources for these salts.  Sodium can be consumed as table salt, or alternatively from baking soda.  Potassium is most typically encountered as potassium chloride, although there must be other forms.  Magnesium is more complicated, since many people report experiencing strong laxative effects from some forms.  It all requires more consideration and review than I'll try to support here.  In theory food-grade versions of epsom salt could supplement magnesium, but that form, magnesium sulfate, may really act as a stronger laxative than other compound versions.

That Reddit sub wiki recommends making up a "snake juice" daily supplementation mix and drinking that, along with extra water intake.  That does work, but drinking salt water can seem a bit rough, even diluted forms.  I've experimented with variations of that practice, and for me it works best to drink a good bit sort of as meals, 3 to 4 times a day.  For sure even sodium and potassium can act as a powerful laxative if you ingest too much too quickly; everyone taking up fasting has that experience at some point.  I can't stand the taste of baking soda in such a mix; that kind of factor enters in.  

Flavoring that mix might be promising, but many people adjust to tolerating it without that step.  There are two schools of thought about stevia and artificial sweetener input, which could relate to this.  One take is that it can cause an insulin release response, and the other is that it probably doesn't.  I don't drink much for sweetened tisanes or diet sodas but I've not noticed any related effects when I have, any problems of any kind.

Muscle cramps are one clear sign that your electrolyte balance is off, or trouble sleeping could be.  I sleep well while fasting, in general, but while exploring electrolyte supplementation I often didn't.

Drinking a lot of water seems crucial.  Some people report good results from drinking an awful lot, much more than 2 liters a day, so I suppose it comes down to personal judgment and experimentation.

Limitations of fasting, related practices

You can exercise while fasting; that seems to work.  I keep intensity moderate, and have evolved practice to use it as a good time for a break from running, but I do tend to walk a lot while I fast.  It keeps my energy level up, and helps me shift over to the experience ketosis faster over the first two days.

In fasting circles discussion the main restriction is on discussing that you are fasting, with anyone, under any circumstances.  I don't observe this, but I get it.  Some people are put off by it, and in one discussion account their company's HR department required them to stop the fast.  It's a judgment call.  People do have an aversion to practices that are completely unfamiliar to them, so in general discussing fasting isn't met with acceptance or interest.

I work well while fasting; the busier I stay the easier it is, and my productivity level can be even higher than when I'm not fasting.  The extra mental clarity, after you adjust to it, is really something to experience.  Flashes of creative insight and productivity can be quite an experience, surpassing what I almost ever go through at other times.

How long someone can or should fast is relatively open, or duration over time.  It depends on the purpose.  People trying to lose weight describe fasting for up to 3 weeks or so in that fasting group; beyond that many report relatively severe side effects, or some in even less time.  Most people there adopt periodic fasting instead, like rotating 3 or 4 day fasting and eating periods (rolling 48s or 72s).  

This is just my take, but it would intuitively seem necessary to eat a very nutritionally balanced diet while trying to pull that off, during the days that one eats, including plenty of protein, healthy fats, and micronutrients.  Additionally supplementation through multi-vitamins might make a lot of difference.  I wouldn't undertake such a practice myself, but then I've not been trying to lose weight.

I fast for 5 days at a time, generally 4 times per year.  For someone trying to maximize or optimize the types of inputs I'm going after, improved general health, and experience of autophagy (cellular recycling), that might be sufficient, or alternating 4 day fasts every other month could be a next further step.  Maybe someone could obtain most of the same benefits only fasting every 6 months, for that same period, 5 days.  To me it helps to not go too long in between fasts to retain the acclimation to the experience.

Other sub-themes

There are so many other related sub-themes one might venture into.  Is it dangerous to break a fast by eating a lot of sugar, or too much food?  Yes, but not so much for shorter fasts, for a period of a week or less.  You definitely should break a fast by eating healthy food though, no junk food, fast food, or high sugar content foods.  Even very high fiber it would be best to avoid, resetting your digestive system with easy to process, balanced foods.  I often broke fasts by eating a healthy version of a burger and fries, so it doesn't need to be so healthy, or as easy to digest as rice soup.  Then I tried it using McDonald's food once, when time was tight, and it took days for my digestive system to recover.  I guess I had that coming, for straying so far from common sense.

Drinking bone broth comes up as a topic, both in relation to a question about whether it would break a fast (it would; even minimal calorie input breaks a fast), and related to a potential input to re-start digestion.  If someone fasts for two weeks or longer you need to re-feed in a much more careful, controlled way, or it really can be quite dangerous.  In such a case using bone broth as a gradual resumption of digestion could work well, according to plenty of discussion input.  But this is a topic I have no first-hand experience with, to be clear; I've only ever fasted for five days at a time.

People ask about what can offset hunger when fasting, if drinking water or salt-water might work, or if there are other "hacks."  It can't hurt to drink a little water or salt-water, but in general the hunger experience is just part of it, kind of unavoidable.  It subsides after 2 or 3 trials, but in those first rounds it's rough.  Your stomach might rumble or produce some gas, and thoughts of food don't quiet down.  Again I think gradually building up to longer periods--5 days; not multi-week fasts--might help.  To me there is no reason why one would need to go further, why fasting for a week or longer would make sense.  Autophagy is said to peak at or after 48 hours, so a 5 day break goes plenty beyond that.

Even though I've said that I've not used fasting for weight loss I can pass on speculation about how that might work.  I reset my diet to be just a little cleaner and healthier after every fast, and I think an approach like this could work.  You could reset, re-start eating, at a slight calorie deficit, switching to 1800-2000 calories per day, if you normally eat more.  You might just reset your metabolism to be slower, instead of inducing gradual weight loss, so it might work as an option to try dropping to 1500 calories for a couple of extra weeks.  Given that fasting could cause micro-nutrient gaps restarting diet to be much healthier than normal would make sense, especially if the idea is to eat less.  If you wake up and eat a few frozen waffles with syrup and then skip eating until dinner your diet will be essentially empty.

One main theme that people lean into in a fasting sub (group) is drawing on support from others to continue a fast, often supported by using an app to track fasting time.  I don't do any of that.  I wouldn't need a timer counting down hours across a period of five days, because I already know exactly when I started.  It wouldn't help me to know that a few internet strangers were also not eating at the same time.  But I don't think that my own approach and preferences are necessarily better for any reason.

I'm also not careful about making sure that I fast for the entire 120 hours (5 days); I tend to start a fast after dinner the first day, and eat a normal dinner on the last, so I would really only fast for 4 days and 22 hours, or so.  These types of practices and preferences vary by person; I get it why crossing the actual finish line makes a lot of difference for most people, as a personal victory.  I would just as soon not re-start eating right before sleeping on that last day, so those kinds of concerns also factor in.

I've not mentioned when I would stop a fast, under what circumstances.  If I feel sick I might, unless symptoms are very mild.  If something feels off I would stop.  I've started to get sick before, the stage prior to the normal symptoms, sore throat and such, and resuming eating a day or two early has seemed to cut short that illness experience to follow.

The only times fasting has seemed to cause atypical health issues seemed to relate to getting electrolyte supplementation wrong, early on.  Experience of an irregular heartbeat is especially concerning; when that occurs I would stop the fast.  I have experienced plenty of hunger, of course, and energy level fluctuation and limited dizziness is normal.  If I feel off drinking a round of tisane (herb tea) seems to correct for that.  In some cases I may just be getting behind on hydration, so that it's really the water in the herb tea that's making the difference.  Drinking a bit of salt water, supplementing some extra sodium and potassium, will often make a difference.  I tend to take magnesium as tablets or capsules, a couple of times a day, so it's easy to keep up with that input.

Conclusions

I don't tend to recommend fasting often because it's just too extreme a practice for most people.  Maybe not as much in other cultures with that practice as a component, but most Thais and Americans certainly can't relate to it.  Since I don't really recommend it for weight loss, as covered here, it's hard to suggest with certainty that it's great for general health, even though that is my understanding.  I think my general mental clarity has improved since fasting, and again I lost the experience of greying hair, which may well connect with other forms of internal systems health that is less obvious.

It's a little harder than I've let on, especially for the first 2 or 3 fasts.  Hunger experience is profound.  I think someone could avoid most of that by using a staged, progressive approach, as I've described.  Now when fasting I can go hours of the day without thinking about food at all.  The sharp, intense experience of hunger no longer occurs, and a dull empty feeling is quite diminished.  It does add some tension, or light underlying mental stress, that never completely goes away.  I find this comparable to the off feeling related to being jet-lagged; something isn't completely normal, for days.  Over time being jet-lagged seems normal to you though, and so does fasting experience, to an extent.

Optimum timing would vary by schedule demands, and how someone relates to different phases of the experience.  To me the first day is very easy, the second sometimes relates to the most experience of hunger, and on day three adjustment of energy level can occur.  Then days 4 and 5 tend to be easier, but mental tension can increase a little.  It seemed to work out well to start fasting on a Wednesday, on work-weeks, because that day is the easiest, and weathering Friday was the main concern.  Then fasting on off-work days was easy, because I could add a nap to offset energy issues, or make the time go faster, and watch more video content to stay distracted.

I think in the future fasting will become much more accepted, in "the West," but not any time soon. We're just not there yet.  Isolated positive accounts will continue to enter into public awareness, but it will probably take years for this kind of experience to become more mainstream.  It's trending more lately, and plenty of health-guru types now recommend it, especially more science-oriented examples of that broad type, like Huberman and the like.  Even so I think people will take up easier versions of their trend-oriented recommendations first, like trying to get some sun exposure in the morning, or ice baths.  It's much easier to exercise than to fast, and a little of that exposure goes a long way for general health.

Designer mineral profile water for brewing tea

 

In the old form of this same topic discussion people would speculate about how individual minerals in tea brewing water affect compound extraction and tea character, and then map their own preferences to specific versions of bottled water, or discuss using local spring water, often referencing colorful stories about secret sources.  Times have changed, and it's on to researching more ideal mineral profiles for water.  These are often presented as either one general recipe working out well enough for all teas or else identifying and tailoring mineral blend recipes for individual tastes, purposes, and tea types.  Fascinating stuff!

One generality isn't made clear in all that I'll summarize or discuss here:  per my understanding some minerals help support other compound extraction from tea, it's not that you are tasting those minerals directly in the water / brewed tea.  Maybe that comes into play, maybe more related to an input like silica than minerals like calcium and magnesium, but I haven't really ran across a complete account of these sorts of cause and effect sequences, what causes what, or rather how it works instead.

Let's start with that history first; it might be of interest to some, as it was to me.  Tea Chat was a main older discussion forum, and there are lots of threads on this topic, but here is a main one from 2011.  I think even back then people were clear on low levels of minerals potentially working out for some tea types, but in general with a moderate level of calcium and magnesium helping extract positive compounds better.  Then "hard water," versions with really high calcium content, or else just high total dissolved solids (TDS), total mineral content, wouldn't be regarded as favorably.  Lots of calcium can even cause a scum to form on the tea, partly a cosmetic issue in addition to an experiential problem.

I wrote about this subject based on trying out Volvic in comparison against my local filtered tap water in this post, the second of two.  There were a lot of related discussions about that topic around then in a Facebook group that I moderate, here.  For people mapping preferences to standard bottled types, or local water sources, then relying on trial and error and hearsay input, that review and discussion only ever went so far.

Tea Curious took a next step, when they developed an "open source" water mineral recipe for "ideal water" back in 2020, here, a page that also works as an introduction to lots of the related theme and factors.  Rie Taluli was involved in that development; maybe her name rings a bell, as one of those known tea people, someone I've enjoyed talking to online.  I can't judge any of these sorts of recipes or developments myself, so the theme here is about passing on a summary, not leading towards that level and type of evaluation.  

A second main development step gives us a lot more to go on, which is well-documented across lots of clear background, related to what Empirical Tea / Empirical Water (related sites) have been developing, and what the Tea Curious blog has been discussing.  It might sound like I'm trying to establish a chronology of development more than I really intend; to me it's just interesting taking note of these milestones along with main publicly available references.  Let's check into that, before the main discussion of what Empirical Tea / Water has developed, with limited comparison to the Tea Curious ideas.  The Empirical Tea site lists this for a history:

Hello. My name is Arby, and I’ve been drinking good tea since February 2018.

Over this (short) time, I’ve become more and more obsessed with the science of what consumers can do at home to bring the best out of their tea. This includes experimenting with tea storage, tinkering with custom water recipes, and more. I will be using this platform to provide updates on things I’ve learned and experienced in the realm of tea.

As of 2021, I have decided to dedicate my life to studying tea academically. As I continue to learn and improve as a researcher over the years, expect to see better-designed experiments.

As far as that online site history per the Wayback Machine scan that site might've been set up in October of 2020, or at least that's their first backup snapshot, so he was putting developed ideas out there even earlier (than that later date).  To me it doesn't matter so much that he's 5 years into exploring better tea, although I get it that some people might like to judge their own personal tea history with others in different ways.  In discussing the early development of the Truth Serum formula Arby said that he wasn't aware of the Tea Curious work at that time, but it probably wouldn't have made much difference either way.  

In a main reference, a Crimson Lotus podcast discussion,  Arby's friend and author of the Tea Secrets blog joined him.  Checking that blog timeline the earliest post on water review was in May of 2021, but for sure his exploration didn't start then, for how well developed that first listed post is.  Both of them have been at this awhile.  

This isn't really intended as a claim that they followed Tea Curious in timing, but maybe, or any sort of guess about the Empirical Water and Tea Secrets histories.  These are just dates this content identifies, which we can take as one form of implied online history.  I didn't try to identify if anyone else has been exploring and developing these themes over the past few years; if so my apologies to them for any potentially implied lack of credit, which was not intended.  These sources are simply enough to tell a bit of a related story, to cover a sampling of some core themes and ideas, with the limitation here that I won't be able to cover detailed findings.

Empirical Tea / Empirical Water research, presented findings, and public access recipes

People interested in following this up should start with that podcast blog intro and then spend a couple of hours browsing those three sites, but of course I'm still going to summarize parts of it.

One main theme is development of a "Truth Serum" version of a water mineral recipe, described as including appropriate mineral content for extracting a lot from a tea for the purpose of evaluation.  Recipes for three different mineral blends are here, that one plus and older version and one more special purpose type, designed for a certain outcome.  

Would it be easy to grab the related equipment and buy the food-safe mineral components to make those recipes, adding that to either distilled or low mineral content reverse osmosis processed water?  Surely not.  This Tea Secrets post probably works as well as others related to basic context, what is involved, related to range of minerals and equipment.  This is a recipe there of an updated Truth Serum version, which will help support comparison of that to the Tea Curious recipe version in a next section.  

One starting point might be reading up on Tea Secrets blog posts reviewing different commercial water versions, with commentary and judgement about them, how well they perform in relation to brewing different tea types.  The next step, re-creating these blends, would be a bit more involved.  Empirical Tea sells a mix version they've created; that might work as an interim step, to judge if the next levels of review and effort are of interest or not.

Jumping around a bit between related themes, this Truth Serum version was intended for evaluation, as presented, and other mineral mixes could suit others better for specific tea type preparation.  Personal preference would define "better" in this case, a running theme across all tea experience.  Let's compare two tea brewing water mineral content recipes, which does circle back to that idea.

Before that one related clarification, there is an earlier and more recent Truth Serum versions listed on the related sites in these two places:

1. https://empiricaltea.com/water-recipe-truth-serum/

2. https://empiricalwater.com/products/truth-serum

Comparing the Tea Curious and Truth Serum versions

Better interpretation of these would definitely involve embracing a learning curve, including the Tea Secrets blog, Empirical Water content, and Tea Curious page.  To keep going one could review a listing of other tea writers' reviews and thoughts on their work and specific recipes, which would require a good bit of review time expenditure.

Let's keep this simple, and check out the listings of final mineral amounts, similar to those we definitely see on the back of bottled water versions, starting with the Tea Curious version:

Together, this leaves us with a water with (roughly) 7 PPM calcium, 2 PPM magnesium, 5 PPM sodium, 5 PPM potassium, 11 PPM chlorine, 10 PPM sulfate, and 14 PPM carbonates and bicarbonates: or around 58-59 PPM, right in our target range after the slight variation you'll get in even the most accurate home scales. 

By now you might be wondering why this water is so dang light, especially compared to the targets specified in the coffee industry, but this just seems to be what tea prefers: as a leaf rather than a fruit + roasted bean, it relies on slightly different mechanisms to get to the ideal brew...

Note that this single webpage cited contains background framing, description of the role of different minerals, how to go about creating the same final mix, and links to related sales offerings (you can buy a mix from them, or a form of food grade, soluble silica--best to let them describe what that's about).

The values do sound low, at least in relation to discussions I've seen about ideal ranges for calcium and magnesium content.  But then hearsay I remember from discussions from years ago is of essentially no value at all, even though a little on that is in one of those old blog posts.  Let's check a Truth Serum version (cited as an updated version in a Tea Secrets post in 2021):

These actually match more than one might expect, given the Truth Serum version is presented as including a mix designed to aggressively extract more compounds, part of the "experiencing the whole truth" of a tea version theme, versus the Tea Curious version being made for more general use.

That Tea Secrets Water Guide post unpacks how these affect outcome individually (in summary form; one gets the sense the depth of those interactions goes on and on), with a sample from that showing how it tends to read:

Hardness to Alkalinity Ratio – The ratio of hardness to alkalinity. The higher this value is, the more acidic/bright/vibrant the resulting tea is. The lower it is, the smoother/thicker/darker it is. What’s the optimum value? It depends! But probably above 0.8 and below 1.5.

Right, it's not easy to interpret without taking a few passes through it all to piece the parts together.  This is also why I would recommend starting with that podcast discussion version, to hear the backstory first, and some of these ideas explained, mixed in with a lot of other related discussion.

From here one might cross-compare this with lots of information on common bottled water sources, either mainstream often-recommended versions or else what Tea Secrets posts review, which seem to be two sets that don't overlap much.  In discussion of good alternatives in that podcast the brand suggestions didn't sound so familiar, but then I avoid drinking water from any kinds of bottles, for the obvious reason, it's just not necessary and it creates waste.  

Awhile back in those rudimentary water input review posts I compared local tap water (which had been tested for mineral content in a snapshot source I found, but which would surely vary a lot day to day) with Volvic; here is that label:

Note that parts per million is mg / liter; the metric system is just great.  What is the effect of all those bicarbonates going to be?  No idea, but this is where input from that Tea Secrets blog can pass on at least one well-informed person's opinion (the first and last table lines):

I'm still not sure after reading that, but with a good bit of experiential exposure I'm sure it would become clearer.

It's interesting how one might arrive at a too-hasty summary conclusion, contrasting a water version designed for essentially maximizing extraction (to an extent; it must not be that simple), and one designed as a broad-scope optimum.  It would be easy to think dialing up most mineral content would work better for maximum intensity, perhaps even better performance when tasting milder teas, and that lower mineral content may well be better when tea intensity is high to begin with, a very common theme in sheng pu'er experience.  Probably far more nuanced conclusions would follow from extensive experience, a mapping between those mineral input functions, a tea type and version's character, and personal preference, one that might never completely sort out. 

Comparing this to my own limited water version trial experience

Back in those two trial sessions that I wrote blog posts about, before all this was developed, two main points stood out, which could help place all this.  That evaluation and those findings are so rudimentary compared to this developed take that maybe I shouldn't go there, but why not?  It's relevant input, even if limited in scope and review input basis.  Summarized general conclusions:

1.  round by round aspect comparison results were at times just different, not clearly better or worse, since the set of aspects just varied slightly in a few different ways.

2.  in the second set of two version trials one water type seemed clearly superior in early rounds of tasting, related to overall experienced results, and not as positive as the other in the later rounds.

No need to read too much into that; it was a cursory account of very little actual experience.  But in none of the three trials cases did it summarize to "this water version was much better."  Citing an example of comments relating to #1 can clarify that:

[Alishan light rolled oolong review]

Volvic: pleasant; sweet, rich, soft, intense but not overly so. Floral range is slightly different, but the difference is so subtle it is hard to pin down.  The point here isn't to derive a flavor-list as much as specify differences anyway.

Tap water: more intense; it pops a little more. A touch more vegetal edge goes along with that, and more mineral. It comes across as creamier. These are definitely different, but again which is better would be a judgment call. The higher intensity is nice but a touch more vegetal range comes with that.

Then the next post, reviewing two different teas in two tastings (pretty good Wuyishan Rou Gui and Lao Man E sheng pu'er), based on the same water type comparison, draws the other conclusion cited:

It's crazy that two main shifts occurred in difference, varying a lot in early and later rounds.  Volvic brewed tea was clearly much better over the first two infusions, and clearly not as positive in the last, probably more even in the fourth, with tap water working just a little better in that round too.  I can't really unpack or explain that.  Somehow a shift in flavor and feel proportion across rounds favored the Volvic earlier on, and then the filtered tap water later (which probably contains a lot less mineral).

Note that a reference source testing local Bangkok water supply samples probably did point towards a general mineral distribution range my tap water might be in at any given time, with that backed off a bit by filtering it at home, but those test results were only a snapshot, so not accurate over time.

Of course I wouldn't expect that to be a universal generality, across all tea types, that this pattern would just keep repeating comparing these water versions.  It's tempting to guess that Volvic had a generally higher mineral content and extracted a lot more tea compounds earlier on, since some minerals support tea compounds extraction, then that these just weren't available for further extraction in later rounds, so tap water gave better results later on, but that may or may not be the case.  This is more just an account of what I experienced, versus a probable explanation of inputs and outputs.

I will probably follow up and try some designed-for-purpose water type in later trials, not to the extent others cited have, not in the form of years worth of experimentation.  But let's touch a little on how this relates to my philosophy on tea.

I'm not trying to optimize my tea experiences.  I don't measure dry weight of teas, although the wetted tea level in gaiwans always ends up where I expect it to.  After limited experimentation with clay pots--I only own three, probably not good versions of any type--I switched back to using gaiwans instead, which provide suitable results.  For using a thermos for brewing water limited heat loss over time would cause minor variation in brewing temperature, which I'm ok with.  I can't spend a lot pursuing the highest quality versions of teas, and I don't regret that, it's fine drinking what I get to.  I like basic, or probably above average quality and novelty of style teas, and prefer to keep the tea experiences simple.  

For reviews I won't eat any food with the teas, and try to set aside an hour or longer to just focus on the experience in order to describe it clearly.  For daily drinking I will eat a light breakfast with teas, without necessarily pairing optimum foods with versions.  I'll often have toast and tropical fruit as a breakfast (I live in Thailand), and I don't think that's necessarily ideal pairing for any tea types.  Related to ceremonial brewing forms I'm essentially Buddhist, not that I do much with most labels, but I don't see most of my tea experience as some sort of exercise in mindfulness, any more than the rest of my life.

So in conclusion I want to express much gratitude and respect to the creators of the ideas I've summarized, and maybe haven't really done justice to.  They've done fantastic work, genuinely researching and communicating findings openly.  I don't see how any tea enthusiast couldn't appreciate and relate to this work, even without it leading to their own water source exploration.  

I probably will follow up with further experiential review myself, I'm just in an unusual life phase just now, so maybe not for another couple of months, or this could be sidelined much longer.  In the end I'm most likely to drink filtered tap water, probably just in Honolulu instead of here (Bangkok), within another month, but it would still be interesting exploring this subject on a much deeper level.

Water fasting for 3 1/2 days

 

This week's theme is fasting, about not eating.  I'll write the first part of this in the middle of the third day, after two full days of ingesting nothing but a bit of salt water and three vitamin tablets (which it turns out was not really an appropriate electrolyte supplement protocol, at far too low dosage, well below RDA amounts).  Today on-site at work I also brewed a dried orange slice and four chrysanthemum flowers, checking if that wasn't enough to trigger a renewed higher level of hunger (and it was fine, no issues).

There are a few moving parts to this:  why I'm doing it at all, what the side-effects and expected benefits are, how being hungry goes, and how energy level and mental clarity work out.  I'll say a little about all of it, then add what seemed to come of it later on.

Why?  I fasted once in awhile when I was younger, but that was only juice fasts, skipping eating food for however long, but drinking juice during that time.  It was to experiment with how that kind of thing went, with a sub-culture theme about it being good for you.  That was a bit before the more recent widespread emphasis on "detoxing," but I guess it overlapped with that.  

To broaden that, while ordained as a monk for over two months we could only eat at 7 AM and 11 AM, before 12, so I guess that was intermittent fasting, before most people had heard that term (starting 15 years ago this month).  I didn't think much of it, or notice any effects.  There I could drink a soy milk in the afternoon, since the restrictions only applied to food, not drinks, so I guess the narrower sense I wasn't really intermittent fasting.

At about 10 years old I had the idea I would try water fasting, and at the very end of the first day the hunger got to me, and I ate some cake.  My parents were pretty understanding about those quirks, in retrospect, since they had essentially never heard much about fasting.  I don't remember where I got the idea.  I only remember being hungry from that, I suppose worse than I experienced this time.

I recently met a guy at a Thai temple in Hawaii who discussed Buddhism and Christianity, and he said that he practiced fasting, and that he saw it as spiritual training.  Cool, right, if possibly a little iffy?  In my past that was kind of an intended theme, for those juice fasts, not just purifying my body of whatever a break from food would result in, but some sort of other indirect and indescribable positive effect.  It's hard to say for sure that it ever worked.  My impression is that it did, but interpretation bias could come into play in that.

he had some really interesting ideas about the overlap between Christianity and Buddhism too

The main goal is to see what the experience is like, which works regardless of any other benefit, in spite of positive or negative indirect effects.

Side-effects, hunger:  I was really hungry for the first two days, but today, the third day, is better.  Of course if I smell food eating that sounds good.  I'm hazy today, and over the last two; my normal energy level is disrupted.  That's about it.  I'm not really having any stomach problems.  I read in a Reddit fasting sub-forum that you should ingest some electrolytes, salt, potassium, and magnesium, and that makes sense.  I didn't prepare ahead but drank salt water and took a couple of vitamin tablets last night.  Apparently taking too much of those electrolytes at one time gives you diarrhea, which wasn't so awful, just a few extra trips to the bathroom.

that first evening I went with Eye to a local market, which wasn't as bad as it sounds

About being hazy I took what looked to be an IQ test for a job application today (back on day three when I wrote this initial draft), a time-based version of one, combining IQ testing and GRE exam scopes.  I probably did much worse than I would have otherwise, probably not related to incorrect answers but as far as how much I completed of it.  Otherwise I can still work, and have enough energy to water to garden and such, or sweep the leaves in the driveway.

Expected benefits:  oddly I'm not clear on that part.  I have to set spiritual training benefits aside, but maybe a lot could be about that.  I don't think I will "detox," dropping out some sort of internal impurities, or lose significant weight.  So I'm mostly only curious if there is a benefit that I'll notice.  I've been eating a much lower quality diet over the past two months, while living in the US, but I could've switched back to a very moderate and healthy diet without skipping eating.  Maybe my cholesterol did spike a bit, and this will correct for that.  But if so I'll never know.

It's interesting considering that I must have entered ketosis, the internal energy production from only consuming fat, that from my own body, versus a ketogenic diet practitioner eating it.  Or maybe I'm losing a bit of muscle tissue too.

Concerns over electrolytes:  reading in that Reddit sub brought up the subject of adding electrolytes, and I initially added some salt to water, and ate a couple of multivitamins, and thought that would be good enough.  My wife expressed some concerns about that, muscle and heart issues, and I woke up in the middle of the night after the third day and felt like my heartrate was fast.  I checked it and it wasn't; around 65 beats per minute, normal for me related to running lowering it to that rate, when it had always been 70 or just over.  Then I was concerned that it might be palpitations, so I read up a bit more on recommended doses, sorting out that I had taken nowhere near that much, and started checking the electrolyte products Eye has at the house.  They contain some sugar, so I didn't want to use them, but ingesting 45 calories started to sound ok.  It turned out that magnesium isn't in either version she had, and that and potassium are at pretty low dosages in the multivitamins I took, 15 to 17% of RDA.  

In the middle of the night I started reading up on electrolytes more, and searched the house for what might include them, joint health supplements and such (which did; I ended up taking those).  Some laxatives or stomach medicines are based on magnesium compounds, but I found no examples in the house.  I downed another vitamin tablet, the joint health pills (a few small ones), and that electrolyte mix, so in a limited sense breaking the fast (45 calories worth).  I wasn't worried so much about bragging rights; it seemed like ingesting even a little sugar could trigger hunger again.  It didn't, so I felt better soon and slept.

Maybe it was all in my head.  I was getting electrolytes intake wrong, for sure, so maybe there was some health risk, and that potentially could've been significant.  I don't have heart condition issues, but I did when I was younger, an irregular beat issue that kids generally grow out of, so it might've been that nutrient imbalance was triggering something.

Ending the fast:  in the morning I didn't even feel hungry, starting day 4, but I was still concerned about that nutrient and heart issue.  It was hard to tell if it was fully resolved, since focusing on your heart beating would automatically bring up an unusual degree of awareness of it.  I was going to either go further with dosing myself with electrolytes or else let the fast go, and I decided that was enough.  I had oatmeal with raisins for breakfast, with OJ with protein powder, then went out to the nearby 7/11 and bought whatever was on the list for magnesium source foods, pumpkin seeds, cashews, almonds, and yogurt.  And I had another electrolyte drink, vitamin tablet, and a few more small joint health tablets (they didn't list the dosage, but as a secondary ingredient it probably wasn't much).

I wasn't so sad about stopping a day short of my goal, either 4 or 5 days, at 3 1/2 days in.  It was a shame to let the experience go right at the point that hunger had finally dropped out, but I had been feeling that plus mental haze, low energy level, and mild headaches for 3 days.  It was a bit much, even though not as bad as I thought.  I felt mentally better that fourth day too, and had more energy, maybe related to restoring more of a normal mineral balance, but concern over real risk tipped the judgement.  

I suppose it's worth noting that caffeine withdrawal was probably part of the impact over the first two days.  I skipped caffeine, except for one cup of tea, for about 2 1/2 days traveling back from Hawaii two weeks ago, but I had been back to one very full gaiwan's worth for over a week since.

Lessons learned:  I'm not sure how to peg the "gains" in terms of digestion system health, since I never had any problems with that, or related to weight loss, or spiritual gains.  I didn't weigh myself once; I suppose I must have lost a little, but probably not much.  I don't think there is a scale in our house.  At least it was an interesting experience.

Related to how to fast exactly what they suggest in that Reddit sub would probably work better, starting at a day in duration, then adding a second day a second time, then maybe bumping to 4, then a week.  Getting electrolytes on hand that you can mix into a water based solution and ingest gradually through the day would be easiest and best (salt, potassium, and magnesium).  Both would add confidence that the process was on track.  At a guess I wasn't really ever at significant risk, and bumping electrolyte intake that third day, and sticking with that, probably would've enabled completing a 5 day fast.  Maybe if I had a better supplement source of magnesium in the house I would've did that; the joint health pills weren't clear on dose included, so it all seemed a bit uncertain.  

Maybe referencing other input could at least expand on the range of what is out there for hearsay, since I'm not really feeling much different 8 hours into resuming eating.

Hearsay input:  I'll cite a Quora answer that covers a lot of the standard list of understood benefits.  To be clear I don't think that a lot of people repeating the same ideas necessarily implies that those are true.  Once a set of ideas gains traction online they tend to take on a life of their own, and it's easy to find countless cases of where people are taking nonsense as gospel truth by being swept along through confirmation bias, seeing what they are looking for.  That the earth if flat is a good example; over time sources making this absurd claim would congregate around a short list of agreed-upon evidence that "proves" this.

interesting that under 1000 people follow "water fasting" while 169k are into intermittent fasting

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-health-benefits-of-fasting

A Quora answer to that question, but as partial framing the author's credential is "Best-Selling Author, Content Creator, Coach, Biohacker."  I take those last two to be warning flags instead of supporting roles or attributes.  Even the best-selling author part is suspicious; maybe that's true, or maybe not.

...But here’s a list of the benefits.

Cellular repair via autophagy. - Your body will self-digest itself, leading to the recycling of old waste proteins and through detoxification.

Increased fat oxidation. - Better use of your own body fat for fuel.

Hastened metabolism. - Your metabolism actually speeds up by 3–14%.

Improved biomarkers. - Reduced cholesterol, lower blood sugar, better insulin sensitivity and no insulin resistance.

Boosted Growth Hormone. - The Holy Grail of longevity and muscle building. It maintain lean muscle mass and burns fat.

Increased life-span. - Fasting increases free radicals that trigger protective pathways.

Protection against cancer and tumors. - Autophagy purges precancerous cells and lowers risk of tumor growth.

Bolstered brain power. - Protection against neurodegenerative disease thanks to increased BDNF.

I really don't know about any of that, and I'm not of a mind to go and read a half dozen research papers to try to sort that out.  Then it would help a lot to try to find another half dozen papers expressing the alternate conclusions to help place those, or discussions or input by people who are solid references, who aren't trying to accept this same conclusion.

I suspect that some of this is accurate, I just have no idea which parts, and that's based on nothing at all, a random guess.  Other input (Quora answers) suggest that your body organs will be able to reset and self-repair while you take a break from non-stop eating, sort of along similar lines of the detox theme, but who knows about that too.  I'll skip guessing more about this list, or referencing other answers there, because I just don't have much to say about any of it.  Hopefully parts are accurate, or even it all.

Fasting mimicking diet:  of course intermittent fasting is the fad that people took up in significant numbers, which I also won't say more about, but I ran across an interesting alternative that's not that in looking around, a fasting mimicking diet.  The idea is to eat only very low calorie input foods for a number of days, just vegetables, and to not stop eating, but to cease taking in much for calories from that.  It's brilliant.  

This section runs a bit long, on some unique ideas, methodology, and findings from a Youtuber bodybuilder source.  That's not exactly the same theme as the prior first-hand experience account, and even different from the hearsay understanding. 

I've been trying to think through why that might not be as effective as water fasting, about why not completely shutting down digestion would be a concern.  I never got far with that.  I heard about this in a Youtuber's channel, one of those bodybuilder / fitness / steroid advocate guys, "Vigorous Steve:"

Steve's EXTREME Fat Loss 5 Day Fasting-Mimicking Diet

He seemed to accept some of the main health benefits others were claiming as a premise, that it somehow improves a lot of body function, but he was mainly focused on the goal of losing weight.  There's an old well-proven finding--that's actually real--that research animals who are on various forms of calorie restricted diets do live longer, which is hard to place in relation to humans, or even causes for them experiencing that.  I think he might've only implied an accepted link to that.  In watching some he claimed that he did bloodwork (testing of blood compounds) and could literally prove he experienced improvement in that five days; that's different, but the context of taking lots of drugs throws off easy judgment about what that means.

That evidence is here:

5 Days Of Salads & Fat Loss Pharmacology | Before & After Results | 6 Weeks Back On Cycle Update

He even claims in that first video that results are much different than just taking a week off to rest, that the fasting mimicking diet helps his body repair minor injuries.

It's kind of a tangent, but look what he says he is now on, for performance enhancing drug use:

The first two are anabolic steroids, both essentially versions of testosterone, I think, but I have no idea what the rest is.  He said the Ezetimibe is a healing peptide, I think it was, so that might offset the claim that the fasting helped with healing, if another compound was intended to support that.  

Then he was on three different appetite suppressant drugs; why not?  And he's on multiple drugs that support burning fat:

This is a free-for-all human trial science experiment at this point.  It's helpful that he's checking his bloodwork (main compounds and warning markers, eg. liver enzymes), but for taking a couple of handfuls of drugs a day he might eventually just drop dead, from getting some parts wrong.

It makes it hard to take seriously that whatever he claims blood results show really refers back to fasting, not a side effect of some, or many, of those many drugs.  He lost 5 pounds in a week, starting at 217 pounds / 98 kg; there's that.  

I've never done any PED's, except unless someone considers caffeine from drinking a coffee that, even though I did lift weights for a few years when I was younger, but to be clear I don't intend this as judging him.  I find the subject of PED's fascinating, because every change that someone initiates by taking any of these drugs relies on normal body functions to work, mimicking or expanding on natural internal compound effects.  My judgement doesn't mean much, or isn't so well informed, but this guy Steve and Derek of More Plates More Dates seem to be among the most conscientious, cautious, and reliable steroid proponents out there.

Conclusions

It might seem strange that I never referred back to what that fasting Reddit sub claimed the point of fasting was, since there is a developed reference wiki there.  There is a bit on that:

• 4. What does fasting do to my body?
• 4.2. Reduced insulin resistance
• 4.3. Muscles
• 4.4. Heart health
• 4.5. Autophagy / other cell regeneration goodies
• 4.6. TL; DR
• 4.7. Diabetes type 2

That section is 600 words long, so a quick read.  Maybe that's a much easier to access summary of hearsay / known benefits than any of those Quora answers.  Vigorous Steve's input, the next "results" video, must be interesting, but since he was on a dozen different drugs, many related to healing support and fat loss, it's hard to know what role fasting actually played.

I kind of want to try it again.  With proper electrolyte intake and my body knowing what's coming the negative effects might be greatly reduced.  I still doubt that I would know what clear benefits occurred if I really made it to 5 days, although I could weigh myself before and after.  I do feel great today, maybe as recovered from running training impact as I've been in years, which I'll check tomorrow.  Or I could just feel great in comparison to suffering from not eating.  I didn't mention the vivid dreams, or how in spite of being hazy as could be I've been as productive as I ever am.  I'll check back here later if I give it another go.

Water testing, Alishan oolong using Volvic versus filtered local tap water

This is a follow-up to the prior water input testing, using Volvic and filtered tap water to brew both Rou Gui and sheng pu'er (a Lao Man E version, not the best choice, sorting out results past that bitterness).  In that testing Volvic brewed infusions were clearly better for both types in the first and second infusion, and not quite as positive as the filtered tap water versions in the 4th and 5th infusions.  I guessed about why in that post, but I'm really not certain.

It seemed better to try this using a mild tea version, something flavorful enough that results in that range would stand out, with feel and aftertaste aspects to evaluate, but with a generally mild tone making finer distinctions stand out better.  Alishan oolong should work better.  I had a couple of samples of what should be pretty good oolong left to try from Song Yi tea, the Taiwan based vendor source I'd reviewed a Brown Mountain (Bulang) sheng pu'er and Mannuo sheng from.

Those both were a lot better than I expected, and a good value for the quality level, so it seemed the two oolong samples they sent would probably be even more interesting, for actually being Taiwanese teas.  I just never got back to trying them.  Those reviews were in July and September of this year; it can work out like that, when lots of vendors send samples to try.

The earlier post on a water input testing outlines Volvic details, and as much as I know about the local municipal water.  I cited a lot of real-time testing (monitoring) results in that post, from over last weekend, but I'll skip that here.  Since it didn't list out mineral content as grams / liter amounts by type the half dozen factors they do monitor aren't really of as much interest.  Ph is always around 7 for that; it should be fine (although it is 7.25 right now at the station nearest to home).


I'm filtering this local water too, so whatever is in it is reduced, but I don't have measurements for anything but free chlorine and total chloride levels.  I'm more concerned with calcium, magnesium, and total dissolved solids measurements, which they don't provide.

the ph monitoring result just now

I did turn up a dated 2014 study of mineral content of water sources in Thailand, including Bangkok tap water, which may or may not pass on some idea of what was in that water:

There's really no guarantee that's at all relevant to what I'm using to make tea five years later, and again to repeat, whatever had been in that water was partly filtered back out.  The last water test review post included some real-time measurements (of free chlorine, chloride, and turbidity), just not including calcium, magnesium, and total dissolved solids values.

Background on the Song Yi Alishan oolong:

It would work to cite more input about the tea, even though I tend to see light Alishan as varying more by quality level than other factors, so basically it's something you judge for yourself once you try the tea:

Origin ：Tea-growing region with gravelly soil
            Camphor Tree Lake Stone Table, Alishan, Chiayi County

Altitude ：1,500 to 1,700m above sea level
Cultivar ：Qingxin (Green-Core) Oolong
Flavor ：Orchid aroma, Almond Peach scent
Fermentation ：30%
Roast ：Light


On their sales page 150 grams of this is selling for $45, so $15 per 50 gram amount.  In retrospect, after trying it, that sounds about right; the version quality is pretty good.  It would be a lot easier to find versions selling for in that range that weren't as good than it would be to find a better quality example selling at the same price, which would seem unlikely.

Versions can get better than this, emphasizing floral range just a little more, dropping back the limited vegetal range, bumping intensity or thickness a little, or that one characteristic mineral aspect, but this one seemed pretty far up the scale.  For sticking within a moderate price range this is good quality and type-typical, just what you'd hope it would be.

Review:

Volvic: flavor is nice; it includes that nice floral range that signifies Taiwanese high mountain oolongs. Mineral undertone is nice, pronounced.  This includes a little vegetal range that distinguishes the best light oolongs from quite good versions, or at least that's my take.


Filtered Bangkok tap water: not all that different. There might be a trace more vegetal range, slightly less high note floral, and a little more perfume base. For those minor differences it's about the same. Trying a faster infusion might help to tease out minor differences. Thick feel and pleasant aftertaste is common to both.

Volvic left, filtered tap water right

Second infusion:

There is a slight brewed color difference; the tap water version is slightly darker.

Volvic: slightly improved; floral range hits even harder, perfume like base is even stronger. Vegetal range is still notable, a touch of green wood. Feel is thick, and mineral and floral both trail after as aftertaste.


Tap water: maybe slightly less high end note, slightly deeper perfume base, more mineral tone. Those last two differences I'd expect related to brewing the tea slightly longer, just probably not the first. That one almost odd, characteristic mineral taste is stronger, not completely unlike new car smell, a unique mineral range. It's flinty, as much as anything.

Making a "better" judgement is tough; they're just different. The Volvic version is better for being slightly sweeter with a touch more floral high note. The tap water version has a lot more mineral base and perfume depth, a less bright floral range closer to lavender. Vegetal range shifts in form a little in each, slightly stronger and just different in the tap water version.

Third infusion

I think the tap water may be brewing stronger, based on color and also taste and feel aspects, but I'm not sure why. Proportion, temperature, and timing are definitely all identical, or at least very close to it, so it's not one of those.  The proportion is too high; I'm not as accustomed to judging rolled oolong amounts these days, and used the smaller version of tasting gaiwans, but didn't bump down the amount (probably a 60-70 ml version, versus the 80-90 ml versions I use more frequently).


Volvic: pleasant; sweet, rich, soft, intense but not overly so. Floral range is slightly different, but the difference is so subtle it is hard to pin down.  The point here isn't to derive a flavor-list as much as specify differences anyway.


Tap water: more intense; it pops a little more. A touch more vegetal edge goes along with that, and more mineral. It comes across as creamier. These are definitely different, but again which is better would be a judgment call. The higher intensity is nice but a touch more vegetal range comes with that.

Fourth infusion:

More of the same, and I won't trail this tasting out to 8 or 9 rounds to see the whole cycle. It's interesting that the prior pattern of tasting two other teas didn't hold, that the Volvic didn't seem clearly more positive early on, and then the tap water better after the 4th infusion.

I thought I probably did like the Volvic version slightly better on this fourth infusion, that being a little lighter and sweeter worked out better, versus there being a bit more vegetal and mineral range in the tap water version.  But the tap water version was fuller in feel, and on the fifth infusion I thought it was more positive for that reason, with flavor differences secondary to that distinction in that round.

Potential next steps:

Not much to conclude; the two outcomes were different, but neither was really notably better.  The Volvic version was a bit lighter and sweeter, the tap water outcome richer in feel, heavier in mineral, and in some cases it had slightly more flavor intensity.  More than that flavor aspects just shifted slightly, in ways that was about as neutral as related to being positive or negative.

I suppose it's some comfort that it seems to not make much difference.  Using Volvic, cited as some people's favorite in online discussion (which of course others disagree with) didn't prepare notably better tea than filtered local tap water.  Oddly it was a lot more positive for the first two rounds of brewing the Rou Gui in the last post.  And it was probably slightly more positive early in the infusio cycle for the Lao Man E sheng as well, but for both that bitterness hit so hard "better" was about sorting past that in those two infusions.  This oolong never really matched that outcome, or the tap water version becoming notably better in later infusions.

I think people could have expected one or the other to be better, and based on that expectation and a positive interpretation could have judged that either one of these outcomes was clearly better.  It seems natural to say "depends on preference" instead, but it's not as if flavor was better for one and feel better for the other, as if an aspect category worked out better using one of the water sources.  Although these seemed relatively different prepared side-by-side I think for tasting them days apart prepared using the two water versions it would be hard to separate out that difference.  The basic character and aspects profile was the same.

I could keep going, trying other versions of water.  This didn't cover RO (reverse osmosis) water, a version stripped of almost all mineral content.  There are other types of water at home (my wife is into mineral water these days, for whatever reasons), and I could run this again prepared using a number of different versions.  It would be interesting checking out results using a water type that's very high in mineral content, with this Volvic seemingly on the moderate end of the scale, especially related to calcium and magnesium levels.  I'm not sure that I'll keep on with this for now though; it adds a good bit of messing around to tasting, and I have teas around to try that deserve more attention than this tasting format allows for.

Water type experiments, with Wuyi Origins Rou Gui and KTM Lao Man E sheng

This is all a bit much.  I've been meaning to test the effect of using different water versions on tea for awhile, it was just always too much messing around to get to it.  Now that I finally did results were interesting, but one part related to sample type selection could have went better.

In retrospect it was odd using teas I hadn't reviewed before, and teas of this quality level for this purpose.  Cindy's Wuyi Origin Rou Gui versions are about as good as that type ever gets, and the fruitier version is a strong contender for my favorite tea among all types and versions.  I guess the reasoning was that using good tea is going to tell more of the story related to what input the water has, versus using teas that are of medium quality, and trying to extrapolate results to likely outcome if the teas had been better.  It was also about just using interesting versions that I had around.

The same concern and atypical theme applies for the King Tea Mall Lao Man E sample; this is a gushu version from a respected, in demand origin area.  It's questionable judgement, shifting focus off the tea onto the effect water mineral content variation has on preparing it.  One might argue that both can be covered at the same time, but per the actual experience a lot gets lost.

About water type / input testing in general, it had always seemed next to impossible to identify what a really good or ideal source of water would be.  Really doing that process justice would involve trying lots of water types, and then probably folding in how that varies across at least a few different tea types.  Online discussions of water mineral levels as an input have been interesting, and standard patterns of opinions do emerge, but nothing that works well as starting point guidance. 

Avoiding high levels of calcium is generally advocated, for example, but my own interpretation of what would be low, medium, and high based on sampling lots of hearsay may or may not be remotely reliable.  I mentioned some advice passed on by Peter Jones in covering some theory in this post, which was really about trying a Myanmar Kokang shu version:

We are still several months away from any conclusions. But basically you want your alkalinity to be 1/2 your total hardness, a pH in the 7s, and a balance of 2/1 of Ca to Mg. The other positive ion mineral salts also play a role in extraction...

The form I finally arrived on--definitely not a final word on a practical, functional approach--was to try two completely different teas using Volvic water (which gets mentioned as some people's personal favorite), compared to the filtered local Bangkok tap water I use at home.  It was a stretch but I picked two relatively random, opposite type teas I happened to have on hand, a Rou Gui and a sheng pu'er.  It turned out to be not the best selection because I didn't factor in the high level of bitterness in the sheng version (a Lao Man E); kind of an obvious mistake to make, in retrospect.  Trying an already familiar, milder version would've made a lot more sense.

I can't describe what the local water is like in relation to lots of other sources, but of course I have tried the same teas prepared using it and also other spring water, RO water, and whatever is being used in other places.  My friend Sasha had a favorite spring water he used, for example, and some of those teas I had tried at home, a number of versions tasted there many times.  A vendor at an expo had been using RO water, and I re-tasted the same teas I tried with them again at home within a couple of days, and I try teas in shops sometimes.  To really isolate differences trying the tea prepared together is all but essential; the point here is that how differences in water source work out in general, and how the local water compares, isn't completely unfamiliar.

Bangkok municipal water had been truly awful, years back.  It varied so much even the color and smell could be off.  We used bottled spring water for years, or at least local water sold as such, which really could be different things.  As of a few years ago we switched over to using a multi-stage filtration system, and the water seems fine.  Per online hearsay the tap water here is based on rainwater sources instead of natural spring origin, so it's low in mineral content, which makes sense given that it rains a lot and we're not exactly near a mountainous or even hilly area.  Per other hearsay local distribution systems are a main problem for water quality, the pipes from there to houses, not so much what the processing centers put out, or even use of old pipes in your house.  It probably helps to live right beside one of the main Royal palaces in Bangkok as we do; infrastructure seems pretty stable and well maintained.

One might expect the water quality and mineral contents to vary based on lots of local factors, and I'm not certain that it doesn't.  I've included a number of captures from the local Bangkok real-time water quality monitoring system, from when I tried these teas, but of course those don't include a measurement of contents broken out by mineral grams / liter at any given time.

It would make the most sense to run this type of comparison multiple times, evaluating tea types one at a time.  I didn't do that, I tried two types together.  That I still don't consider a mistake; I've been training to do comparisons that make sense, or else those that don't instead, for about three years now.  I've tried hundreds of teas over uncountable combined tasting sessions.  It's familiar ground.  If someone without that odd tasting habit wanted to get the clearest results I'd definitely recommend using the more intuitive approach, trying the teas one at a time, perhaps using 3 or 4 types of water to add review complexity.  Selecting mild, well-known versions of teas would probably work best, regardless of type; that part was a mistake.

I'll probably try this again with a rolled oolong version to see how it works with a very mild but complex tea, which should also help to isolate feel effect even better.

Review, comparison of Wuyi Origins Rou Gui with two water types:

Rou Gui with Volvic:  just amazing tea!  I'm not sure if that's the water though.  This didn't say if it was fruity type or cinnamon Rou Gui but judging from the heavy, warm cinnamon taste it's that.  Flavor is intense, feel is thick, level of roast is perfect, slightly noticeable but only complimentary.

Rou Gui with filtered tap water:  this is similar but the flavor may pop a little less.  It seems to be drawing out a lightly different vegetal note, as if the warm mineral resembles celery just a little.  Cinnamon is slightly flattened out.  This difference is so minor that tasting across different times it wouldn't really stand out as much, but side by side it does quite a bit.  Sweetness is down just a little too.  It's the same great tea, almost the same flavor profile and feel, just a little different.

an early round; color differences didn't seem to tell a lot of story, so I'll pass on adding more about that

Second infusion:

Rou Gui with Volvic:  this tea is just perfect as cinnamon intensive Rou Gui goes.  The balance, intensity, all the profile taken together; this is it.  The cinnamon part really jumps out.  It's warm and rich, almost connecting a little with a very subtle roast level, or maybe it only seems that way.

Rou Gui with tap water:  it's almost the same experience but it is missing some of the one high point that makes the other tea experience so special, the brightness, sharpness, and intensity of that cinnamon flavor.  The deeper tones and supporting elements carry across fairly well; fullness and body isn't bad, kind of similar.  The first version might have a slightly heavier, oilier feel, which is more positive.  It's a quite similar tea experience but funny how those parts that seem most interesting and critical are what flattens out.


It's too early for conclusions but the results already seem clear enough; this local water doesn't work as well.  I don't foresee buying bottled water to drink tea with though.  I wouldn't throw out a few large plastic bottles a week to get this effect difference, or probably even one 1.5 liter bottle a week to review using a different version.  It's a shame the local water isn't better but adding expense and impacting the environment to drink slightly different versions of tea isn't going to work out.  Maybe a charcoal treatment effect will help; that idea comes up a lot.

Later edit:  it was too early for conclusions; the opposite kind of trend turned up in the fourth and fifth infusions, a trend that was much more pronounced in the sheng version.

Third infusion:

Rou Gui with Volvic:  This tea is probably evolving a bit in character but I've lost track of clear prior impression to describe that.  It's still great, probably with a slightly shifted balance of aspects.

Rou Gui with tap water:  it's great with this water too, with less difference standing out than had initially.  It's still not quite as intense, giving up just a little sweetness, and more so dropping out just a little punch in the warm cinnamon aspect.  There is a very minor difference in the mineral tone, so subtle it would only come across in direct comparison, but it doesn't work to describe it or judge how negative it is.  I think it is slightly negative versus neutral, but that's a judgement call at this point, as much just a difference.

Fourth infusion:

Rou Gui with Volvic:  a slightly dry underlying mineral in this might have increased this round, it just doesn't stand out as much in this as it had for the sheng at this stage, or take exactly the same form.  The tap water version is just as good this round, or perhaps even slightly better.  So strange; I have no idea why that would be.  I would expect effects to shift a lot for increasing brewing time in later round but this isn't really onto that as much as it would be in two more infusions.

Rou Gui with tap water:  still really exceptional, not losing anything for intensity or positive range.  I think depth is picking up, that the one-note emphasis on cinnamon is deepening to include a lot of other warmer tone range, that it balances even better.  It was great the other way too though, focused more on that one flavor aspect.

Fifth infusion:

I'll lengthen infusion time slightly but these teas are holding up; adding a lot of time for that wouldn't be positive.  I'm brewing these over 10 seconds now, for what I'd take to be optimum, maybe around 15, but it goes without saying that I'm not timing this, since I just don't.


Rou Gui with Volvic:  mineral is a bit much in this, a dry version of it.  Looking at the mineral profile calcium and magnesium seem to be at the level I'd expect to work best, based on following online discussions about that (12 mg and 8 mg, respectively).  It's not "hard" water, but that should be enough to play a standard role in extraction and setting profile.  The rest, the total dissolved solids value, would be a bit much; there's lots of other minerals in this.  This is still really pleasant, and a very nice citrus aspect is ramping up in this tea, a "chen pi" dried mandarin peel type effect.

Rou Gui with tap water:  slightly better than the Volvic, for not including so much of that dry mineral effect.  The rest of the profile is similar.  The citrus part may be at a slightly lower level, so not as intense or positive, but the overall effect is better for not tasting as much like that dry version of mineral.  Mineral is great in tea, in the right balance; it grounds the experience.  Older plant source teas and natural origin teas seem to express a lot of that, an underlying mineral element supporting overall complexity.  It's just slightly nicer in this tap water version for balancing better, in this particular infusion of this tea, per my judgement.  The difference in extracting other flavor range hasn't dropped out but is has shifted in balance; it seems to matter less.

I didn't note differences or aspect range for feel or aftertaste much for these; that didn't seem to vary as much as flavor related to the water type input.

a later round; adjusting infusion times would change effect of color difference

Lao Man E sheng water source input testing:

King Tea Mall 2018 Lao Man E sheng gushu with Volvic:  bitterness stands out; to be expected.  One could learn to love that effect, even at this level, but I haven't.  If it balances well with the rest I can appreciate it, even like it, but this is a bit much.  The tea seems to obviously be good tea; all the other markers for quality work out, thick feel, clean flavors, depth and complexity, lingering aftertaste.  That front end bitterness really defines the experience though, then it trails on, not dropping that much intensity for awhile.  At least sweetness goes along with it, and there is plenty of other range.  I'd expect it to drop off a little by round 3 or so but I'm not sure how far past that I'll get.

Lao Man E with filtered tap water:  a touch of metallic taste seems to be added to the rest.  That extended aftertaste is going to make this a terrible choice for combined tasting though, about as poor a choice as one could make.  I might have considered that, but it's not like I'm drinking Lao Man E all the time.  Rinsing your palate with plain water (not warm, not cold) works, but it's a lot to rinse in this case.  Making mistakes to learn from can be a good thing, it's just more pleasant when they're less obvious, less stupid mistakes.

In general the flavor profile seems to pop a little less, again, with that mineral difference the main change.  Sweetness may be slightly reduced but bitterness is dominating the flavor profile anyway, so it would stand out less.

Second infusion:

Lao Man E with Volvic:  bitterness is easing up; it's balancing a little better.  It won't be until the next round this approaches a more conventional sheng profile though, more evened out.  The point here is the difference anyway.

Lao Man E with tap water:  beyond a touch of mineral difference in this (not really a positive one; a touch of metallic flavor) and a slightly reduced fullness of feel it's similar.  The other Volvic brewed version comes across as slightly sweeter.  In the case of the Rou Gui it's about a shift in the best attributes being slightly dimmed, but the character isn't so different beyond that.  In the case of this it comes across differently.  That shift in underlying mineral, slightly less full feel, and slight reduction in sweetness seems to add up to change the tea character more.  They're only small shifts, and the basic aspects are the same beyond that, the general feel, flavors range, aftertaste, feel, but the effect is more of a change, or a change at a deeper level.  Again the Volvic brewed tea is just better; there was no trade-off that benefited using this local Bangkok tap water, at least not yet at this stage of infusions.

Third infusion:

Lao Man E with Volvic:  this is much better balanced for transitioning over those rounds.  Not in comparison with sheng that doesn't emphasize bitterness, if someone doesn't like bitterness, but I'm fine with it at this level, it's just definitely not a close match to personal preference.  The thick feel is nice, how clean this tea is, how the different layers of aspects work together.  One part under that is actually a little floral, drifting a little towards fruit, but deeper light mineral is really stronger. 

Rich, full feel is nice.  Aftertaste works a lot better for dropping off.  Usually people would couple those last two descriptions with where the feel impacts your mouth or throat, with aftertaste also related to a lingering feel.  I'm never so good with all that, in part for not valuing it.  It probably is as much a valid quality marker as what I do pick up more, but it seems a developed preference that would be as natural to never develop.

Lao Man E with tap water:  this finally works about as well as the other version.  It gives up a little thickness in feel but somehow the fruit and floral range (complex, but subtle, hard to define) is standing out a little more in this.  It might be working out as well or even better for not stripping out as intense a version of that bitterness.  Feel losing a little thickness isn't as positive.

The floral and fruit range I can try to define, to describe, but it would be a guess:  it's bright and sweet, so along the line of plumeria and dried mango.  There are lots of types of dried mango, so those tend to vary a lot, but that gets complicated to wade into that.  The brighter, sweeter, more citrus oriented kind.  In retasting both that bitterness hitting a little harder in the Volvic version isn't quite as positive, to me.  It may make for an exception that stripping out a little less intensity wouldn't always be a bad thing.

Fourth infusion:

Lao Man E with Volvic:  it's really strange how this is exhibiting a stronger mineral aspect, a slight metallic range.  It's almost as if I've mixed up the water sources, but then this probably does have more mineral content, so maybe that makes sense.  I have no idea what that means.

Lao Man E with tap water:  it's nice how that balance evened out.  Bitterness is still pronounced but the proportion is more relatable now.  The complexity is nice, the range of flavor, and how feel and aftertaste contribute to overall effect.

Fifth infusion:

Lao Man E with Volvic:  a dry mineral input is much stronger in this tea version.  It tips just a little towards how chlorine comes, that's just not it.  It's much more positive to say it tastes like limestone, and to be fair it's really in between the two.

Lao Man E with tap water:  there is less mineral effect in this, making it come across as sweeter in character, and better balanced.  I don't know that it is actually sweeter; that may just be how it seems, without as much of the mineral input changing things.  The tap water version was actually slightly better over the last two infusions, but to be fair the difference is a bit minor.

Conclusions:

It's crazy that two main shifts occurred in difference, varying a lot in early and later rounds.  Volvic brewed tea was clearly much better over the first two infusions, and clearly not as positive in the last, probably more even in the fourth, with tap water working just a little better in that round too.  I can't really unpack or explain that.  Somehow a shift in flavor and feel proportion across rounds favored the Volvic earlier on, and the filtered tap water later (which probably contains a lot less mineral).

It's worth noting that different people can and do use completely different timing sequences related to brewing different rounds to different infusion strengths.  It's more common to use lower proportions and longer times, and then to extend the timing more across later rounds than I tend to.  Why that is becomes a lot to account for, and beyond citing personal preference some of the rest wouldn't be clear.  It's hard for me to account for why people like tea prepared differently than I do; to some extent I suppose I never could.

It could be interesting to consider the water mineral content though, starting with the Volvic listing:

I'm kind of guessing, since I have been involved with plenty of discussions about water content but haven't memorized ranges, but the calcium and magnesium levels look ok, if maybe even a little low.  Per discussions those two are the main factors, with a moderate amount improving results, and high levels throwing them way off.  Looking back through old discussions and references, Rie Taluli did a review post comparing tasting results using of a number of types for green tea, and in a discussion comment of that post Peter Jones (who is into reviewing mineral effect themes) cited listings of standard mineral content of a number of brands:


EVIAN - Natural spring in France - 290mg/L sodium bicarbonate, 81mg/L calcium, 27mg/L magnesium, 6.7mg/L sodium. 

AQUAFINA (Pepsi), DASANI (Coke) - Municipal water through RO - no sodium bicarbonate, no calcium, no magnesium, no sodium. 

GLACEAU (Coke) - Municipal water through RO - no data, but unlike Dasani, they then add back in for flavor the calcium, magnesium, and bicarbonate. 

FIJI WATER - Natural spring in Fiji - 153mg/L bicarbonate, 18mg/L calcium, 14mg/L magnesium, 18mg/L sodium. 

NESTLE PURE LIFE - Municipal water through RO - no bicarbonate, 7.4-11mg/L calcium, 2.9-5mg/L magnesium, 4.4-9mg/L sodium. 

ARROWHEAD (Nestle) - Natural spring in Arkansas - no bicarbonate, 4-66mg/L calcium, 1.4-19mg/L magnesium, 3-17mg/L sodium.


I can't imagine that using Evian would work well, and it's odd that Arrowhead water is so inconsistent, but I'll leave off saying much more about the rest.  I do come back to the sodium level idea related to the local water version level.

About the local water description, some input is offered by Bangkok real time tap water quality monitoring (http://twqonline.mwa.co.th/EN/map.php?type=).  We live next to the Chitralada station, in the center.  These don't mean that much to me but they could to someone else:

free residual chlorine levels, Nov 9, 2019, 1 PM

chloride levels (mg / L)

turbidity (NTU)

ph

salinity, listed as g / L (seems wrong, too high?)

July 2019 ph capture (to show variability)

I don't know what was in that water, for specific mineral content, and I don't know what the filtration process would have removed.  Chloride level was around 4 mg / l in this water, versus 15 mg / l in Volvic, but what of that?  Salinity just seemed wrong; those readings would seem like way too much salt, in the 150 mg / l range.  What if that is right; shouldn't the water taste like salt?  As a baseline I checked how much is in seawater:

On average, seawater in the world's oceans has a salinity of approximately 3.5%, or 35 parts per thousand.  This means that for every 1 litre (1000 mL) of seawater there are 35 grams of salts (mostly, but not entirely, sodium chloride) dissolved in it.


So 35,000 mg / l, which still doesn't answer if I could taste 150 mg, but it's a context of sorts.  It occurred to me that salt is sodium chloride, so unless I'm missing something the two values don't match up, the measured amounts of chlorides and salinity.  That prompted me to look up answers to both questions, how much salt can one taste, and what are normal levels for these.  This WHO reference covers the first:

Taste thresholds for sodium chloride and calcium chloride in water are in the range 200–300 mg/litre (2). The taste of coffee is affected if it is made with water containing a chloride concentration of 400 mg/litre as sodium chloride or 530 mg/litre as calcium chloride (3).



I don't think we can take that second sentence as good input about coffee enthusiast perspective.  More input from that source pins down range of chloride in typical fresh water:

The mean chloride concentration in several rivers in the United Kingdom was in the range 11–42 mg/litre during 1974–81..


That still doesn't resolve the monitoring inconsistency between salinity and choloride levels, but it is interesting to compare that to sodium levels in the other bottled waters.

Further conclusions:

That last section was mislabeled, wasn't it; not much for conclusions in there, or even speculation.

I suspect this tap water version ended up with very little mineral content in it, due to starting out with limited amounts and filtration removing some.  It's interesting to consider that tea producing more positive infusions initially might generally relate to producing less positive infusions across later rounds.  At least that did happen here, per my interpretation, and it may work out as a somewhat uniform generality (or may not; that goes without saying).  This could explain why some people push teas to produce very long counts of infusions, and others tend to not like them as much after a much shorter sequence, although simple preference difference seems to be just as relevant an input. 

Then again, who knows.  Round after round of trying out lots of water and tea versions would tell a longer, more accurate story.  In online discussion it's not uncommon for people to claim that they prefer different water (mineral content, presumably) for different tea types, and that would intuitively make sense.

I've never ran across much detailed speculation of why soaking bamboo charcoal in water is said to improve the results for making tea with it, even though people advocating that practice comes up a lot in discussion.  Even when it's being sold for this use, as in the case of this Yunnan Sourcing version, there's not necessarily a reason for why it might make any difference.  It probably does, it would just be interesting to hear guesses about why.  Here is one that Google search turned up, Tony Gebely's input, but somehow it's not satisfying as a complete and plausible explanation:


The idea behind bamboo charcoal, and any charcoal for that matter is the fact that it is extremely porous and will absorb impurities in water. It really isn’t “filtering” water if you set a stick in the water, in order to filter the water, the water must pass through granulated charcoal or some other medium (this is how Brita filters work)...


It would seem that it could be both adding and removing minerals from the water, and that only testing, instead of speculation or traditional input, would shed light on this.  I would tentatively accept that it really does improve results, although that would be clearer to me if I tried it myself.