to think people should do more 24/48 hour famine and less cake eating to help starving people in Africa

[sPJPPp]

Is it me or has the sponsored 24/48 hour famine famine died out? 20 years ago it was a big thing, I remember how much it made me think when I did it as a teenager several times. I'm obsessive about never wasting food. These days I never hear of anyone doing it, has it been killed by health and safety?

Genuine question - why would someone need to fast to understand that famine and starvation are horrific?

As long as the money is going to the charity that helps the hungry in Africa and the money is put to good use, does it really matter how the money is raised?

Charities have clever fundraising teams that are always looking at innovative ways to raise money. Just asking people to put money in a bucket does not work much now, so they look at other ways. The traditional cake sale always works, as do sponsored runs and challenges.

Brt100is that you?

I remember the 24 hour fast. I did it once too.

Yes I know I should eat less cake, but thats more to do with my size than people in Africa.

Regarding charity, I have my own charities I support by running.

never heard of a 24hr starvation for Africa, it wouldn't do any good anyway as they have had millions collected for them and it has not made an ounce of difference to the poor people living there,
they are still starving so where has all the money gone to ?

I'm an African, living in Africa. You are patronising if you think we go to bed with a grudge about the warm plate of food your children will have. Messiahs keep your pity charity, I'll plough farms for mine.

Maybe you could stop eating so much fruit and send your fruit money to the charities?

Many international development charities look at solutions for Africa and other countries that have problems with poverty. Such as Wateraid who look at providing solutions in areas where there is no immediate water, by providing water children can go to school rather than walk hours for water. This then increases education and gives the children a brighter future to work towards.

There are lots of international development charities that work towards healthcare, training and supporting nurses and doctors to work with the local population in times of need and help plan for the future.

I do not know of any apart from the emergency response charites, such as Red Cross who do food drops, and then only in emergency situations.

I do think we all have a duty to help those in society, not just our immediate one, who do not have the opportunities we have. It does not always have to be money. You could donate an old PC or laptop to ((www.computeriad.org)) who collect old computers/laptops and professionally refurbish them for donation to hospitals, schools and charities in over 100 countries.

You could do a sponsored fruit eat, OP.

it wouldn't do any good anyway as they have had millions collected for them and it has not made an ounce of difference to the poor people living there

You're wrong. It has made a difference to people living there. It's been used to set up schools, provide healthcare, establish micro-finance schemes that help local people to set up their own businesses.

It's set up rape crisis centres in conflict zones where rape is used as an instrument of war. It's provided lawyers so women can pursue their rapists through the courts. It's funded local campaigning groups that are challenging big businesses that are decimating their regions and the natural environment.

It has saved lives and if you're in doubt about that then why not volunteer with one of the international development charities.

OP I didn't appreciate the nuances of your first post ie that you were implying fasting was a better way to raise money than eating cake. Most charities will take money no matter how you raise it (gun running and selling illegal drugs usually being the exceptions!). They really don't care if you eat cake or don't eat cake, and I don't think the local organisations in Africa care either.

Fasting has significance for many people for religious reasons. By all means fast if it adds another dimension to the giving for you but I don't think it adds anything for the people you are trying to help.

Well it is a better way in terms of health and isnt ridiculous ly hypocritical, fat nation (2/3rds overweight or obese) eating junk food to help raise money for starving people.

Well, I'm not overweight or obese, and I don't live on junk food, but I think it is ridiculously patronising. As PP have - including one who actually lives in an African country - aid agencies and the people who need aid don't care how the donated money is raised, and starving yourself doesn't help them in any way. Nor can it possibly give you any idea what it's like to be genuinely destitute because you do so in relative comfort with the certain knowledge that after 24/48 hours you can go back to eating whatever you want. The only person who benefits is the participant, and they get a nice, warm glow about what a good person they are.

Also, it isn't a better way in terms of health. Human beings are designed to need food at least once a day. That's why not eating makes a person feel ill.

How is not eating anything for 24/48 hrs better for your health than eating a cupcake as part of a generally healthy diet?

Bloody ridiculous idea.

would I want to pay to sponsor someone to not eat for 24 hours? No I wouldn't
Would I want to pay for a lovely homemade chocolate cake? Very likely!!

evedallas actually fasting has been found to be very good for you

But not better than a normal healthy diet?

Maybe if these overweight and obese adults hadn't been taught to routinely overeat by being guilted into 'never wasting food' and clearing their plate for the poor starving children of Africa then they would be slimmer now. Maybe if we didn't invest food with such powerful emotional significance, labelling some as 'junk', 'bad', 'naughty' (but also a treat and reward) whilst fetishising other foods - say, fruit for example - as 'superfoods' that prove a person's moral superiority and virtue...well, maybe we'd all be a bit healthier physically and mentally and we'd be able to buy a bit of cake to raise money for charity without accompanying guilt, shame or judgement...

Fasting has loads of health benefits, as the vast majority of people in this country are overweight / obese and diabetes rising rapidly yes I do think it is healthier for people to not eat for a day than consume vast amounts of sugar on a cupcake or ten.

What health benefits are those then?

Why assume that a person will eat 10 cupcakes?

Why assume that all cupcakes have a vast amount of sugar?

Why do you object to a proven way of making money for charity? What is your better idea? How much more money do you think you could make than the people currently happy to bake cakes to be sold for charity?

Why are you so obsessed with what other people eat? Do you realise how boring and uptight you sound?

Also, as a teacher I am not in favour of children doing a zero calorie fast, especially not 48 hours long, as it does affect behaviour, mood and ability to concentrate. Sponsored silences, on the other hand, TOTALLY get my vote.

I'm interested in the benefits too. Could you link to some evidence for that - obviously, in the form of peer reviewed medical papers, not something woo from someone with a book to sell?

Which one earns more money for the starving people in Africa? That's what matters. What you feel doesn't help them. Your being healthier from not eating sugar doesn't help them. Your not wasting food does not help them- I knew that when I was 7 or 8 and my DM was telling me to eat because there were starving children in Africa. I said we should send the food I didn't want to eat to them.

There are studies which show benefits from IF (intermittent fasting) but there are also some studies that raise concerns. The 5:2 book was based on clinical research with breast cancer patients and that initial study seemed to show health benefits but that study was not long-term and did not assess any impact on fertility, or the different impact IF could have on the sexes.

There's a brief summary here of some of the research which probably has enough detail that you could find the original studies if anyone wants to read more.

^Despite the growing enthusiasm for intermittent fasting, researchers have conducted few robust clinical trials, and its long-term effects in people remain uncertain. Still, a 1956 Spanish study sheds some light, says Louisiana-based physician James B. Johnson, who co-authored a 2006 analysis of the study's results. In the Spanish study, 60 elderly men and women fasted and feasted on alternate days for three years. The 60 participants spent 123 days in the infirmary, and six died. Meanwhile 60 nonfasting seniors racked up 219 infirmary days, and 13 died.

In 2007 Johnson, Mattson and their colleagues published a clinical study showing a rapid, significant alleviation of asthma symptoms and various signs of inflammation in nine overweight asthmatics who near-fasted every other day for two months.

Detracting from these promising results, however, the literature on intermittent fasting also includes several red flags. A 2011 Brazilian study in rats suggests that long-term intermittent fasting increases blood glucose and tissue levels of oxidizing compounds that could damage cells. Moreover, in a 2010 study co-authored by Mattson, periodically fasting rats mysteriously developed stiff heart tissue, which in turn impeded the organ's ability to pump blood.^

However, the entire to fast or not to fast argument as regards fundraising is nonsense. If you want to fast to fundraise then do so. If you'd rather eat cakes then dig in. Fasting for one day isn't going to stop us being obese as a nation.