How much theanine is in tea?

 

I just looked this up related to someone bringing it up in a biohacking group, of course related to taking it as a pill supplement instead of drinking tea.  Those people love supplements, the more experimental the better, it sometimes seems.  Theanine should be harmless enough, in a normal dosage range.  But what is that?

WebMD says this; they would never steer you wrong:

L-theanine is naturally found in tea and some mushrooms. As medicine, L-theanine has most often been used by adults in doses of 200-400 mg by mouth daily for 4-8 weeks. Speak with a healthcare provider to find out what dose might be best for a specific condition.

People in that group said that 100 mg is probably ok for a starter dose, but if they mean to take that twice a day it's back to 200.  It would depend on why someone is taking it.  WebMD says this:

Possibly Effective for:  Memory and thinking skills (cognitive function). Taking L-theanine by mouth might help healthy people stay focused. It isn't clear if adding L-theanine to caffeine works better than using either of those ingredients alone.

There is interest in using L-theanine for a number of other purposes, but there isn't enough reliable information to say whether it might be helpful.

Healthline said this, more in line with what those people in that group were using it for:  

It’s said to help ease anxiety, stress, and reduce insomnia.  Before trying it out yourself, learn more about the potential health benefits, as well as any possible risks or complications.

So those two not so reliable, light content health sites said completely opposite things; that can happen.  People in that group thought that it could provide different benefits, and were taking it for different reasons.

So how much is in tea, especially in relation to standard supplementation amounts?  Scanning a few sources turned up different measured amounts, but this seems kind of middle of the road for other results:

Theanine and Caffeine Content of Infusions Prepared from Commercial Tea Samples

Materials and Methods:

Theanine and caffeine contents of 37 commercial white, green, oolong, black, and pu-erh tea samples were quantified by high-performance liquid chromatography-diode array detector.

Results:

The mean L-theanine content of white, green, oolong, and black teas were 6.26, 6.56, 6.09, and 5.13 mg/g, respectively. The same values for caffeine content were 16.79, 16.28, 19.31, and 17.73 mg/g.

So just over 6 mg per gram of dry tea.  The caffeine values seem normal enough; measured amounts typically ranges between 15 and 25 mg/g, so maybe a little on the low side, but these are "commercial" products, probably low to medium low in quality level.  Both theanine and caffeine range might bump a little in relation to testing or consuming slightly better tea, but probably not too much.

Extraction rate could be a little clearer, but it seems to follow the same pattern as for caffeine, so for a relatively complete brewing process something like 90% may be extracted, possibly a little less:

So from there it's really down to daily intake, amount of dry leaf prepared per day, which is going to vary for everyone.  Someone could brew two rounds of tea a day and consume 10 grams, but I tend to brew 9 or 10 grams for each Gongfu brewing session.  10 grams at 6 mg / gram of extraction (which may be slightly lower) is 60 mg; not a lot, in relation to taking supplements, which again might be in a range of 200 mg per day (taken as pills), but that would just depend.

It's interesting that they seemed to test one pu'er sample and found no theanine in it.  That could be an anomaly, or it could be that they tested shou pu'er and fermentation really does transition that compound to become something else.  Here is that summary:

Those results are all over the place.  There may well be a correlation between theanine levels and buds and fine leaves content, versus older leaves, as there is for caffeine level, but you can't really spot an underlying cause input from this kind of list.  It would seem natural for there to be a divide between variety Sinensis and variety Assamica plants, but this definitely wasn't set up to isolate that input, or any other, really.  One sample of any given type doesn't even tell you with any certainty that other samples of the same type would follow the same pattern, and have a similar amount in them.

For me it's enough to have as a guess that we might be ingesting around 6 mg per gram of tea, since I'm not even sure what theanine would do anyway.  There's a vague understanding that it calms you while caffeine gives you a lift, so I guess a very mild speedball effect, but not much of one.  The effect would be limited if your daily consumption probably lands between 60 and 120 mg per day, and only that higher level based on drinking 20 grams worth of tea a day, which is a lot.

I glanced at a couple of other studies and they're in this general range, with some showing some black tea amounts that are a good bit higher (in this study example):

High levels of milk resulted in a marked lowering of the level of detectable l-theanine. Contrary to previous research, a standard (200 ml) cup of black tea was found to contain the most l-theanine (24.2 ± 5.7 mg) while a cup of green tea contained the least (7.9 ± 3.8 mg).

So their findings were way off that other scale, which is more typical of what other sources that I looked through were saying.  It can be confusing comparing amount per brewed cup with a derived amount per gram of dry leaf, which to me is easier to work with.  They seemed to be making tea from a standard 2 or 2 1/2 gram commercial tea bag, and then infusion time surely would've been a limitation to extraction, since you don't brew tea bags for 10 minutes.  The point here is more that studies vary on general findings, as that one study varied quite a bit in relation to measured amounts and individual tea versions, even within type categories (black, green, and so on).

Someone could keep digging if they really wanted to know, but it would be hard to factor in what these studies are not testing for:  theanine amounts in relation to tea plant material type (buds, fine leaves, old leaves), and related to tea quality level.  Guessing that a final average experienced result is around 6 grams per gram of dry tea seems good enough, with extracted amount probably just below that.  

We're taking in a significant amount of theanine when drinking tea, just not getting dosed on the high side compared to the range of 100 mg to 400 mg of intake per day.  20 grams of tea--a good bit to drink in one day, which probably would exceed that 100 mg theanine input level--might work out to 20 mg of caffeine per dry gram of ingested tea, or 400 mg of caffeine per day, the general recommended daily limit.  

That is on the high side of most caffeine level test findings; 15 to 20 grams per mg is probably a more standard range, with extraction potentially between 85 and 90%.  My point in venturing into this second tangent is that it seems that you can drink 20 grams worth of tea per day, related to not exceeding a standard caffeine input level.  Then a daily dose of over 100 mg of theanine might offset some negative effects of caffeine, feeling "jittery," as people understand might happen.  It's not completely clear that would occur, but then theanine and caffeine aren't necessarily the only two active compounds in tea, the only two that would have any effect on how you feel.

Tips on seated meditation

 

I'm working on a book on Buddhism; I guess this is my first public announcement of that.  These ideas I'm sharing here aren't directly about all of that scope, but it definitely overlaps.  I recommended in an online group that someone try out meditation in order to help them with memory and mental focus problems, along with getting their sleep in order, and exercising.  

That was in a Reddit thread here, in an interesting group about "biohacking."  Lots of those people take a lot of new and even relatively experimental supplements or drugs, but it also relates to other kinds of scope, basics, like adjusting sleep, diet, and exercise inputs.  I don't take random supplements or drugs, but it's interesting hearing about all that.

That person asked for tips or starting points on how to meditate, and I commented this:

Sure, along with the usual framing limitations. I tried practicing on my own a long time ago, and then did formal training when I was ordained as a Thai Buddhist monk, for two months, but all that is still limited. And there are different forms of meditation, etc.

Keeping it simple could help. It's probably best to try conventional seated meditation, "cross-legged," because that form is functional, but if you have a problem you could try in a chair instead. Not the lotus position, that most people's legs won't do, ordinary sitting. I'm going to explain why you might have problems, and how to work around them. That's beyond having a "bad hip" or whatever else; that is whatever it is. People carry tension in their bodies and it's essentially almost unnatural to try to remain motionless. It makes the tension in your body intensify, creating a feedback loop of feeling tense, feeling stress from tension, and so on. I'm only talking about sitting cross-legged for 10 or 15 minutes, early on; nothing too taxing. Still, it will probably feel unfamiliar.

Watching your breathing and relaxing it makes all the difference. Your breathing actually connects fairly directly with your mental state. Usually the link goes one way, and happiness or stress causes relaxed stomach breathing or tense, choppier, faster, upper chest breathing (respectively). You can practice and make it go the other way; you can adjust your breathing to adjust mental state. To meditate you only need to relax a bit, pay some attention to your breathing, and acknowledge random trains of thought as they come up, and let them go. In the very beginning your mind will be a bit noisy, but it will settle some. You can practice mental calmness while you walk too; that will help.

A limited amount of shifting around won't change anything, repositioning yourself. Later less will be required. If you can get to where you can do 15 minutes and it isn't a problem you can keep going, but beyond a half an hour things get harder, and there's no need to push it. Definitely set a timer, otherwise you'll keep guessing how long it will be, or looking at a clock. You can sit on something, a thin mat, a pillow, whatever, but it will be helpful to learn to let your body structure shift to a comfortable position, versus making a thicker cushion do the work. You are calming your body and mind at the same time. Your body's weight should settle into how your skeleton rests; that's a part of it.

Why do it? It seems reasonable to ask, even important to. It's not a wrong answer just to see what comes of it. It will relax your mind and give you more patience and focus throughout your day, but the process is slow enough that if you watch for it you'll be disappointed. Over a month of practicing every other day there might be some change. It takes more mental focus and causes more stress than it seems it might. That mostly drops out not so long in, but it's like how people are when they first try out running. They suck at it, and it's unpleasant. Later you can relax into it and it's familiar. You figure out what works for you.

I would avoid music, or any background noise, but some is fine. Your own mind will be noisy enough. There's a tipping point past which it's a lot more comfortable. In some training forms they might do more with breathing (just breath from your stomach, in a very relaxed fashion, a bit on the slow side). One approach alternates walking and seated meditation. I'd just sit, not too much, daily if it works out to. No need for too much pressure; skipping a day won't matter. If you feel very tense, sweat a lot, or feel pain you just need to relax more. It will bump your body temperature a little, the extra effort, more than it seems that it would. You don't have to be good at it, or put a lot of time in, or experience a quiet mind, for it to feel pleasant. Maybe just more so after you finish.

The rest of what I'm writing, the book that I mentioned, isn't mostly practical guidance like that, but one section is roughly exactly that, those ideas.  Then it's funny how the audience that you imagine or speak to changes how you frame and communicate the ideas, so the form wouldn't be identical.

The rest is about other interesting experiences with Buddhism, and about my own take on what Buddhism is supposed to be, how core teachings can be put into practice.  A long time ago I experienced a high degree of disruption in my life and looked into all sorts of explanations of what the human condition was all about, and how to make positive changes, and within a couple of years I gradually focused almost entirely on Buddhism.  It works.  Earlier on I was reading philosophy, psychology, random New Age oriented themes, whatever I ran across.

I have two degrees in studying philosophy and religion (and one in industrial engineering); that's related.  That came later though; it was more a part of trying to communicate what I had learned, over many years of study and practice, which ultimately didn't work out.  Now I'm trying again, and if communicating through writing a book doesn't work out I can live with that, but I feel compelled to try.  It could help people.

no need to make that face, but this is basically it

Trying out a 7 day fast, settling for 5 days

 

I'd meant to fast again before Eye and the kids come back for Christmas, and weighing 2 kg more than normal when I last checked that encouraged me to try longer.  I thought that I might have been able to stabilize my weight back a bit lower, 72 or 73 kg instead of the normal 74, if I return to a lighter diet the first week.  I haven't weighed myself in the past 7 days (there is no scale at the house); I'll never know how it changed.

It didn't work, adding two extra days.  Nothing too unusual came up, but I think I didn't get electrolyte supplementation right, which I'll say more about here.  I started not feeling well 4 days in, then worse on day 5, and quit.

Again it was about potential health benefits, more than losing weight.  I just saw a news story about Dana White, the UFC (fighting) president claiming fasting reduces cancer risk by 70%.  I'm not sure about that but it may reduce risk.  There's a chance that I'm experiencing reduced aging effects related to fasting for 26 days in the last year (30 after this, really in just over 12 months).  My hair seems to be less grey, down from Keo counting 8 hairs to seemingly even less, and I may be gaining hair back in a pronounced bald spot.  The aesthetics makes no difference to me but related to general better health that would be relevant.

I had been using an easy, familiar cycle of fasting Thursday to Monday, related to the first day being easy, and that only including Friday as a work-day where I'm a bit hungry.  Days 4 and 5 were always easy.  I planned a whole work-week a bit off this time, M to F, then to see how days 6 and 7 go on the weekend.  Day by day notes tell the story.

Day 1:  almost no hunger this time, but mental clarity was a bit off.  In the evening I walked 45 minutes to go get the cats special food they're now hooked on, with the oldest basically living on fish, and ran 40 minutes as well, a 4+ mile route at the usual 6 minutes per km.  It's odd mixing those two units; my phone app is on km, and it seemed like most readers might relate to "freedom units."

The theory was to spend out glycogen reserves, so instead of doing the ketosis transition between day 2 and 3 to get that over with on day 2.  Oddly running feels about the same, with or without eating; my "metabolic flexibility" is pretty good.  That's true for days into fasting now too.

Day 2:  again not much for hunger, although the general off feeling started in.  I tried out drinking an aged sheng to see if that would work (a 19 year old version), related to someone commenting about that specific tea I also owned online.  It's not like drinking young sheng, which would be painful on an empty stomach, but it's not a good idea.  I'll stick to shu pu'er and aged white, maybe adding a roasted Wuyi Yancha when I want to mix it up, but that's pushing it too.

People discussing fasting mention an experience of greater mental clarity; I don't get that.  Usually by day 4 I'm back to normal, maybe even slightly clearer, but for me days 1 to 3 are a bit off.  On day 2 that relates to hunger, and on day 3 typically energy level fluctuation.

I'll see if that plan to rush the energy source change-over shifts more issues from day 3 to day 2 and tomorrow I'm fine.  I'm not hungry at all today; it's strange.  If I see food it sounds ok but it's not like before, when I would crave it.  I didn't hide anything from myself, so I'm walking past peanuts and raisins, and see yogurt in the refrigerator, where I keep the cup I drink water from.

I did a bit of laundry; my energy level isn't too far off.  Even if I feel somewhat normal I want take it easy for a few days to get the most out of the extra rest.

Day 3:  That energy level disruption really did seem to kick in yesterday, and I'm not back to normal early today either.  Hunger hasn't been bad at all; I don't think about not eating much.  I think that if I can stay a bit busy today and tomorrow I'll notice it less, and then it should just seem normal, probably shifting to less impactful tomorrow.  

I've drank tisanes twice already, more than I typically do for the 5 days, mixing some chrysanthemum into a late round of the shu I had with breakfast on the first day, then drinking some mixed gooseberry, lemongrass, and monkfruit seed tisane yesterday evening.  I wrote these notes before I got to it but I drank rosemary brewed as a tisane later in day 3.

Mentally the idea of fasting for an entire week, including an entire work-week, feels a little more daunting.  That time-span includes the US Thanksgiving--tomorrow--but I probably wasn't going to observe that anyway, living alone, with less access to turkey to make it myself, living in Bangkok where it's a normal work-day.  Maybe I'll do some sort of make-up meal next week.

Day 4:  the end of day 3 was a bit rough yesterday, and today I feel much better.  I went to work on-site, which is slightly more demanding, doing a commute, then being there in-person, and walking by quite a bit of food.  It's funny how your sense of smell for food increases so much when you are fasting; I swear that I could smell the neighbors eating McDonald's yesterday.  In prior fasts the smell of most foods wasn't as bad as food versions that I ended up craving, but I'm feeling the gap now, and seeing or smelling any food reminds me of the fasting status.  I suppose that's still an improvement, that I don't think of it unless something reminds me.

It's Thanksgiving today, back in the US.  I told two Thai co-workers that and they had no idea what that means.  You can try to find turkey dinners but you won't just walk by a place serving that, so it's not something anyone would notice.  For living alone now I wasn't going to try to cook all that anyway.  It was a little extreme just drinking salt water instead of eating anything.

I'm sick of the salt water.  Even for closing in on 30 days of fasting, in just over a year, that only ever seems so natural, and I keep adjusting how much I drink in relation to plain water, or the timing, or to an extent even the dosage.  Per a r/fasting Reddit sub reference you should be ingesting something like 3 grams of both sodium chloride and potassium chloride, which is a lot.  There's no way to know if that's way too much or the right amount.  It's impossible to know how fasting changes normal daily intake requirements for electrolytes.  Per some references being in ketosis increases sodium demands, which are ordinarily around 1500 mg per day, so going up to 2 or 3 grams might make sense.

I'm not feeling mental pressure about the fast, too much, but the extended planned time does seem to add extra weight.  At least hunger isn't so bad, or energy and mental clarity, which is all normal for day 4.  I don't feel close to energetic enough to go for a run.

Day 5:  I feel fine as of the morning; energy level might be a little lower than usual but otherwise quite normal.  Hunger experience isn't an issue at all; all that seems to drop off after day 3, unless you go to where food is, like I did yesterday.  I visited a mall to pick up protein powder for later and walked by lots of grilled foods, ice cream, bakeries, Thai snacks, Japanese restaurants; on and on.  It wasn't so bad but it does trigger extra hunger.

The 5 day routine had felt really normalized, by the 4th time doing it.  This doesn't.  Oddly electrolyte replacement doesn't go as well as the last two trials.  A slightly increased amount seemed like way too much two days ago, as if I couldn't keep up with water input, and I've had trouble getting a balance back.  I'm not certain that the Reddit fasting sub's recommendation page for inputs isn't too high; they recommend about 3 grams each of sodium and potassium, at the middle of the range they specify.  

Maybe you really do need a ton of salts to continue with ketosis energy processing, or maybe not nearly that much.  Drinking a lot of water is probably a good thing, to help your body sort out whatever conditions you put it through, but I couldn't seem to get thirst and indirect effect of drinking salt water to balance.  I cut it back to less than usual yesterday (well under 3 grams of each, closer to 2) and that might be an ok maintenance level.  Magnesium is easier; I take two tablets / capsules of 400 mg per day, since only taking one seems to result in negative effects, mostly sleep disruption.

Day 5 update (evening):  I wasn't feeling well and ended the fast.  A mild sore throat yesterday continued on to today, and energy level issues got worse throughout the day.  Something seemed off related to electrolyte intake; it was getting harder and harder to force myself to drink any of that salt-water mix, even though I went lighter on it yesterday, and only made it through half of a pre-measured amount in the evening today.  

I tried going out for a walk after work, and that went ok, so it wasn't energy availability that was an issue, just feeling a bit off.  More than seemed appropriate, I guess; someone should feel unusual after not eating for 5 days, but since this was a 5th time doing that the range is somewhat familiar.

I'll cover what I think happened in conclusions, but maybe I'll never really know.  It feels a little disappointing quitting early, but 5 days is a lot, and with things seemingly going worse and worse the next two days were likely to just be enduring more and more.

Conclusions:

I think a main problem related to electrolyte input variations.  This part is a little awkward to share, me getting that wrong, but communicating about the experiences doesn't work with covering all of it.

Before I was sort of carefully measuring out relatively specific amounts of sodium and potassium based on recommendations from that Reddit fasting sub I keep mentioning, making a mix with water to drink periodically throughout the day.  I don't remember exactly where I tried to be in that recommended range every time in the past; somewhere in the middle, not on the low or high side, but I was probably varying it some since I didn't log it, or any such thing.

In the past I was "measuring" teaspoon amounts using a non-standard measuring spoon, since I've been doing these fasts when my wife is in Honolulu, planning them around that, and I didn't think we had measuring spoons.  We don't bake; they don't in Thailand, and we've only ever had a toaster oven, and that's the only time you tend to use those.  I found where she kept them though, and I think earlier estimates of amounts were lower than measured amounts.  I was going for between 2.5 gram and 3 grams of both sodium and potassium per day, at the lower end of what that reference recommended.

Still sounds like a lot, doesn't it?  It seems that 1.5 grams of sodium is standard for a normal diet, and then ketosis adds extra requirements (maybe; so it seems).  Standard daily requirement for potassium is either 3.6 grams or 4.7, depending on the reference you use.  Surely no one is getting anywhere near that from a typical diet; on the high side that's eating a dozen bananas.  No need to go too far with details here but it's clear from several experiences that if you ingest a lot of sodium and potassium at one time that will have a laxative effect, not only the magnesium input, which is better known.  It's counterintuitive that your digestive system would contain enough for a laxative to work 2 or 3 days after eating, but it does, I guess an odd mix of bile, stomach acid, and whatever other digestive fluids.

It seemed like I ingested more salts than I tolerated well in the middle of that week, and couldn't get back to an equilibrium.  I had been drinking tisanes in the evenings the first couple of days, and adding quite a bit of extra water intake may have made a difference.  I drank plenty of plain water with the salt water, again not measuring total daily intake though, but at some point it seemed to not balance, and I developed an aversion to the taste of it, beyond it normally seeming gross.

Shifting to attempt 7 days made a lot more difference than I expected.  Mentally it seemed a lot harder; days 2 or 3 just weren't that close to it all coming to an end, not halfway through yet.  Fasting for one whole work-week is a lot.  It was much easier doing Thursday and Friday before, then during a weekend, with the first day not impacted at all.  Hunger wasn't an issue, and energy level and mental clarity really weren't problematic either, so it wasn't really so bad for work output disruption, but it adds a limited extra degree of mental stress.

Related to the electrolytes the first and last day of a fast matter less, because you carry over a decent balance on day 1, and plan to get that from food in a meal at the end of the day the last, so for a 5 day span it needs to balance well for only 3 days.  I suppose that's why I probably had moved from the lower side of that recommended range to their recommended middle, to not accidentally fall behind (that was their lower limit threshold; I mean before I stayed in the "minimal" range).  I had ran a couple of times during the last fast, which would reduce salts in your body a lot, along with the hotter weather then drawing them out.

I wanted to have the experience of a longer fast version, a week, as a reference for the broader understanding of the process, but I might just stick to 5 days and call it good, probably not trying it again until next year anyway.

Potential fasting health benefits; normalizing fasting practice

 

The last post about fasting experience settled in on "why?," never fully resolving that, and I'll only repeat that theme a bit here, extending it to two different directions.

The main answer in the past has been "to experiment."  Of course most people fast to lose weight, but my own body weight seems strongly inclined to return to the previous level (about 74 kg or 165 pounds), and since that's reasonable I don't try to adjust that.  Maybe I should shift back to more like 71 kg / 160, and will at some point.

After 20 days of experience of not eating that initial experimentation phase is kind of done; so what's next?  Any answer would relate to potential or expected health benefits, so lets summarize that, after placing why I'm trying to communicate this.

I would like to share these ideas to make the option to practice fasting open to more people.  I don't need to validate what I'm doing, to get others to join in so it makes it seem like it really does make sense.  For the most part I don't care what other people do, or think.  Related to helping other people I make an exception, and then if I can I do.  So I guess all this is a claim that I buy into the health benefits?  I'm a bit skeptical, but otherwise I do.

On to potential benefits.

Fasting may enable metabolic flexibility.  This would allow someone to use body fat energy more effectively, which could apply well to exercise, not just to not eating, although I guess also to being able to skip lunch.  I do seem to experience improved energy level on longer runs.  

I last tested out running four miles on day 4 of a fast, so completely into ketosis, with glycogen reserves long since expended, and that went ok.  I was experiencing minor knee soreness (so probably shouldn't have even ran that), so I didn't try out a longer test.

Fasting reduces insulin resistance:  This actually seems to work; it seems more clearly documented as an actual positive effect.  For people at risk of developing adult onset diabetes--which is a significant risk for me; both of my grandmothers and one uncle developed that--they can reduce that risk through fasting, moderating body weight, and reducing high levels of intake of carbohydrates, especially refined sugars. 

There's nothing necessarily dangerous about all refined sugar intake, per my understanding (which is not necessarily well-informed), it's that it's easy to bump that to very high levels, and then actual risk does come up.  Drinking 32 ounces of soda relates to about 100 grams of sugar consumption, at around 336 calories, or one sixth of a normal day's dietary caloric intake.  That's like eating 6 1/2 apples; which would take longer to digest for all that fiber, even if you could eat that many.  Risk also relates to that being empty of any other nutrient content, to that potentially adding to a positive caloric balance (more taken in than used), and to problems with your body handling the related blood sugar.  Conversion to body fat can occur, and some other negative side effects, and to developed insulin resistance.  

It's probably better to moderate body weight and mind dietary inputs than to use fasting to offset impacts of being overweight and eating a bad diet.  Or doing both is an option.  Maintaining significant muscle mass also helps (not like bodybuilders, I mean average or more than average), for different reasons, especially since muscle tissue stores glycogen (reserve energy), but I don't want to write out too many tangents in this.

Fasting may reduce visceral body fat.  There are tests for this sort of thing, so I could be documenting this (my actual proportion of body fat by location), but I'm not.  The idea is that fat in or between organs is used first when fasting, and that first change is not at all just a cosmetic concern.  Liver function should improve as a direct result of regular fasting, if fat deposits in the liver were an issue to begin with.  How often is that relevant though?  Who knows.  Blood compound markers would show that, but I'm not minding those, and missed my last annual health check at work due to being out of the country then.  

I can add that I've put on about 3 kgs (6 1/2 pounds) over the last two years and my waist size was a little larger a year ago, and then bumping running volume and perhaps fasting dropped it back to where it had been.  Thinking it through storing visceral fat in the form of what is in between internal organs may or may not be a bad thing, but it seems clearer that storing fat within your liver is a problem.

More mental clarity, reduced aging effects:  hard to say about these kinds of changes.  I feel ok, probably a little clearer, but that's hard to track.  Maybe I do have slightly less grey hair than a year ago, which is odd.  I can even sometimes see eyebrow hair change from white to brown again, since those being two colors stands out more--hard to place that.  I've been running more since then too, really keeping up with sleep, exercising a lot more, and my diet has improved a bit.  

And I've ramped up intake of goji berries as a daily supplement; that might've helped.  I finished a kg I bought in mid-June recently, so I seem to be consuming 350 grams or so per month, just over 10 grams a day, a good bit.  Why?  My thinking was that I try to eat a lot of fruit but don't get to that every day, and I definitely can put 10 grams or so of dried berries in hot water and then consume the infusion and fruit, every day, regardless of what I happen to be eating that day.  Supposedly one compound in those offsets aging impact, but even if it's the nutrients in them that are healthy instead that also works.

Fasting may offset cancer

This is a big one, and this tangent runs longer than I intended, since I've been reviewing this subject a good bit lately, just not necessarily in a focused form.  

I have no idea if fasting does really offset cancer risk or assist with resolution, but many, many sources claim that both do occur.  I can't sort out which potential claims work or don't work, or when and how they apply.  From catching a bit of cancer experience related Youtube content--which I'll say more about here--cancer cells do consume a lot of blood sugar, so that a main way of tracking growth of such tissue is to just monitor where the most is being consumed in the body (after you ingest some radioactive sugar; kind of a strange process).  I'm not really caught up on what my cells are using for an energy source right now (it's day 2 of a fast, as I write the first draft, long before posting this), but of course my carbohydrate intake is over, for now.  I'll probably be "in ketosis" later today, whatever that means.  

Autophagy is said to occur during fasting (and it really does, but exactly what that means is harder to pin down).  At a minimum your body consumes internal body fat (of course; how else could you stay alive, since only using muscle tissue as an energy source would make less sense), and it may recycle all sorts of damaged cells.  It's a complicated subject though, one that's hard to sort out.

Someone could easily turn up a lot of content saying that fasting really does offset cancer risk (this is an interesting example), or support treatment / resolution, but how good any of those sources are would be hard to settle.  Cancer isn't just one thing, and experiences would vary, and a topic like that naturally relates to a lot of people repeating what they want to be true, filtering their own reference source input.  A lot of light medical advice looks more solid than it might really be, and a source citing other sources isn't clearly well-grounded until you also evaluate those.  That linked video reference cites a lot of research background, but even for those kinds of sources you need to be careful; you might read only about studies supporting some claim, when conclusions from other studies also reject that connection.

Those cancer related accounts come from running across a Youtube channel about someone experiencing cancer, Paul in Perth, and then the Youtube algorithm showing me plenty more of that since that's how it works.  If you watch one channel about puppies, even if you're not subscribed to it, you'll see lots more of that in your feed there.  It can be a little depressing, watching people talk about dying, but for the most part those stories are about being hopeful and positive when things are dark for them.  To me those people tend to be more inspiring than any other accounts of any subjects.

In a comment I asked Paul in Perth if he could use fasting for cancer resolution and he said that it could have potentially helped at an earlier stage, but for his disease being so far progressed negative effects related to recovery from chemo treatments made it relatively unsuitable (per his understanding, related to his own condition and type of cancer).  

I just saw a video of a guy literally at the end, Daryl, saying that he was signing off since he would die within a day or two, and he was much more positive and upbeat than almost any movie review content.  He showed a box / urn he picked out, shook it, and said "this is light; I guess I'm not in there yet."  A 16 year old girl, who goes by So Fia, ended a long series of posts about her struggle focused entirely on the positive, about her love of life, and appreciation for what she had.  She was so much stronger, braver, and more wise than any other "healthy" influencer type I've ever seen.  The main message is usually one of hope and optimism, about appreciation for life, not fear of death.

None of this related to fasting, to be clear.  None of them even tried it out as a form of partial resolution, although there surely are videos out there about people who did feel fasting helped them, which again would be hard to evaluate, or people trying it and not noticing any positive difference.  

Should those people have tried it out?  I have no idea.  According to health claims within "fasting circles" of course they should have, but personally I can't place that.  There is no clear cause and effect for why they developed cancer, or why others experienced miracle recoveries that they did not, some related to fasting and many more not (the first guy I mentioned a video channel for is still alive; the other two are not).  

In many cases people link cancer experience to high carbohydrate diets (back to hearsay input from cancer patients, to be clear).  Discussion of treatment experimentation comes up more related to keto-oriented diets (more than fasting, I suppose, at least per limited and random sampling).  That's not intended as a claim that generality or that resolution practice is effective, I'm referencing their understanding.  In looking up those video links this content creator thinks his cancer stemmed from a vitamin D deficiency, oxidative stress (from multiple inputs), from alcohol exposure, and a high carbohydrate diet.  Who knows; maybe those were the main causes, surely along with genetics.  

I've skipped including links to people claiming fasting helped them resolve cancer experiences here; even a post focused on that topic would be taking on a lot.  I'd also be careful of trusting what seem to be very well grounded but light information sources online linking fasting with cancer prevention or resolution, of which there are many.  It can seem that if one source might be valid or could be questionable that 10 taken together must be reliable, but many people make videos citing the same studies on mice that may or may not mean a lot related to actual human experience.  They might be generating that content with a slightly different spin mostly to draw viewership, without really turning up any new insights, or in some cases even without reviewing more grounded sources.

Why would I embrace fasting as a means to potentially offset a risk that's not necessarily high for me, when it's hard to clearly determine the linkage that it even works (beyond a lot of claims floating around)?  One partial answer is that I'm discussing potential reduced risk of dying, at a cost of not eating sometimes.  I've spent roughly 20 days fasting over the past year (25, after editing this; I just finished another 5 day fast), and the main cost or impact was increased hunger and reduced clarity and energy level over that time.  All of that was much more moderate in the last fast, and hunger is much more of a non-issue this time too.  People actually claim that fasting improves mental clarity, but what I mean here is that energy level fluctuations have an impact, especially in the first 3 or 4 trials.

Another partial answer is that reduced cancer risk isn't really the main benefit people associate with fasting, beyond weight loss, and it's not necessarily a main reason I'm doing it.  Supposedly--as mentioned--it offsets effects of aging, increases mental clarity (when it's not offsetting it), reduces visceral fat levels and impact, and offsets risks from insulin resistance, lowering risk of diabetes.  Autophagy is another subject I won't really get into here, closely linked to potentially reduced cancer risk, which I've covered more in the past.

Why wouldn't people fast then?  There seems to be a lot of potential benefit, and most people could use to lose a few pounds.  Let's address that separately.  

Why not fast?  Normalizing fasting practice.

In discussing that in a health related thread someone commented "that sounds like complete torture."  There's that; hunger experience is profound over the first few trials.  It's so negative that exposure to a consistent problematic condition like that works as a mindfulness tool, a way of experiencing the present moment differently.

In light of that it would be natural for people not to fast if they aren't sold on any of these benefits, if they have no clear reason to.  I'm only going to mention it to set it aside here but it's hard to be certain any of these claims completely work.  What someone considers good evidence would shift what any individual review would turn up.  If it's only to find documented research of multiple independent findings then maybe that would be possible, but you would still need to interpret what a number of narrow studies really mean in actual practice.

If finding a couple of dozen "health expert" claims and personal experience accounts is enough then that would be an easy bar to clear.  I'm a bit skeptical by nature, so I tend to arrive at probabilities related to what I think is accurate, not necessarily even trying to sort out the final facts of the matter.

Some people might actually regard fasting as posing health risks, although anyone unfamiliar with the subject also couldn't be clear on what those are.  Vitamin deficiency, stomach problems?  The second is mentioned more, when you tell people you practice fasting (per my experience, at least).  

Oddly people who eat continuously throughout the day would actually routinely experience stomach problems, and I never do, because I eat moderate amounts of foods almost entirely as three meals.  That was true before I tried out fasting too though.  I'm unfamiliar with what it's like to regularly experience an upset stomach, constipation, diarrhea, bloating, or any problems with digesting food.  By "regularly" I mean that I might eat something that speeds up my digestion process once a year, or every other year, or that makes me even sicker every half dozen years.  That's not bad for eating a broad mix of local foods in Bangkok.  The rest I essentially never experience.  Some vegetables, legumes and beans, or high protein foods cause gas; that range of experience is familiar, especially as a former long-term vegetarian.

Fasting hasn't caused me any noticeable stomach problems, in those 25 days.  I get hungry, but not like during the first three trials.  That relates more to an empty feeling than other types of discomfort.  Really empty; it's hard to describe.  As of writing an initial draft of this, on day 2 of 5, I could go for most of an hour without being reminded that I am fasting, and the next day maybe even longer, but that's not to say that I felt no negative side effects.  I was hungry, with a low energy level, but I might not notice either for awhile if I'm busy, or even watching a video.

In bodybuilding circles rapid fat loss is very desirable, but muscle tissue loss is a serious concern, so fasting can be applied, but only in limited forms and contexts.  One of the main intros to this subject, that partly led me to explore fasting practices, was from one longevity related "biohacker" bringing it up, and one bodybuilder (Leo and Longevity and "Vigorous Steve," who isn't as far out there as his Youtuber brand name implies, but a little maybe).  

Steve used fasting to rapidly resolve fatty liver disease, even though applying a fasting mimicking diet for weeks cost him plenty of muscle mass loss.  Most of that muscle came back fast, and it seemed the very real health risk caused him to reconsider even trying to be as massive again (the 250 pound or up range, I think).  Leo explored fasting as he did many longevity related pursuits.  Steve feels absolutely certain that fasting does definitely reduce visceral body fat, from experiencing that, and perhaps Leo's direct experiential claims are harder to evaluate.

Most people in a Reddit fasting sub-forum I follow practice fasting mainly to lose weight, which makes sense.  It's a somewhat radical approach, but it should work.  Often people either struggle to make it through 24 hours there or else really swing for the fence and go straight to attempting 21 day fasts, which I see as unnecessarily difficult and risky.  With more exposure people seem to settle on alternating fasting and eating, on a 2 or 3 day cycle, which they might refer to as "rolling 72s," the hour duration.  Since the benefit of autophagy is said to "kick in" after 2 days I would think using a 3 day cycle might be better than 2.  Or 4 would work; for me the second day is hardest in terms of hunger and the third is most disruptive for experienced energy level.  

Few people would be familiar with how fasting isn't as unpleasant an experience after repeated exposure.  I can compare it to how running can definitely seem distinctly unpleasant prior to more exposure than most people would ever experience, and then it's kind of pleasant, even addictive.  I think fasting ends up being more neutral, not so difficult, and definitely not pleasant, but just normal over time.  

Maybe level of discomfort can be comparable to when you get 5 or 6 hours sleep instead of 8 (which I don't do; I need my sleep, and I put my time in with sleep deprivation working night shifts when younger and raising young kids after that).  For many people that's a normal trade-off, a way to go through life, so that eventually they wouldn't even notice feeling a bit hazy and off, after their body adjusts to it.  At this point I'd much rather not eat for a day or two than try to function on 5 hours sleep.

My take on fasting benefits

I've really not been clear on how many benefits I buy into here, or which I seem to directly experience.  That only works so well because the largest scale benefits you can't pin down, like reducing cancer or diabetes risk.  Maybe I'm mentally clearer, but that's really hard to track too.  So many things factor into that.  My experience of digestion can't improve because I've never had problems, but it hasn't worsened.  

Resetting my diet to a somewhat healthier form has definitely happened, but oddly I was eating a really healthy diet a year ago, before a first trial.  There were a few snacks to shift to a healthier form, and I could've dialed in generally healthy food intake to a level that may be a bit extreme, and did so.  I think all of that has supported taking my running habit a lot further over the past year, but again inputs and outcomes are complicated.  I know that I've ran between 15 and 20 miles a week for all this year, but I can't trace that directly back to diet improvement; maybe I could've did the same eating worse instead of better.  I feel like it helped my energy level when running, the metabolic flexibility theme, but who knows.  

It's too bad I skipped my annual health check-up last year, due to being out of the country when my company conducts those, and probably will again this year; that would be a good way to track some change, potentially, and undergoing that is a good idea in general.

Fasting has changed how I experience an urge to snack between meals, which was always somewhat limited.  I had switched from eating a bit of chocolate--or potato chips, if they were around--to some mixed nuts between meals around a year ago, and after fasting I tend to snack as a habit even less.  Fasting highlights how much of that practice relates to immediate triggers, like seeing something, or to boredom, and it can become more normal to drop out both cycles.

In conclusion...

Fasting is an option?  But then it always was.  

I've taken up and set aside a lot of atypical practices over the course of my life, and it's interesting considering why others don't do those things, or when maybe more will, or I guess in some cases to what extent I'm making any sense at all.  I was a vegetarian for 17 years, which I ended about a dozen years ago, due to not putting the right effort in to get it to balance, and experiencing immune system problems.  Since then it has become a lot more mainstream.  

I was into rock climbing in the early 90s, and thought this is so cool it will have to "take off," not noticing that it being gear intensive and difficult would probably prevent that (and has).  I explored Buddhism for many years, but then I always knew that was for my own reasons, that there was never going to be broad uptake.  This being a tea blog of course that pattern applies to that beverage choice too.

Fasting will probably never really have its day as a broad trend, at least not in the immediate future.  People only need to skip breakfast and lunch to see why it's not a standard option; you get hungry.  That gets worse on day two, even if it's much diminished on a third or fourth fasting experience.  "Biohacking" is much more approachable; taking a lot of supplements and drugs.  I get it.  I'm not on that page myself but I get it.

I reset to a healthier diet but it's still based on normal food