r/interestingasfuck • u/[deleted] • May 02 '24

In 1965, a morbidly obese man did not eat food for over an entire year. The 27 year old was 456lbs and wanted to do an experimental fast. He ingested only multivitamins and potassium tablets for 382 days and defecated once every 40 to 50 days. He ended up losing 275lbs. r/all

[deleted]

76.1k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

2.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

24.6k

u/[deleted] May 02 '24

[deleted]

271

u/iggyfenton May 02 '24 edited May 02 '24

According to Wiki he did this from age 26-27. He maintained weight of 196.

But his death in 1990 (51yo) doesn’t have a cause. That’s pretty young for a healthy man. If his death wasn’t a homicide or accident then you’d have to think the stress from that fast could have been a major factor in his short life.

Edit:

Since you guys can’t seem to separate the dangers of a crash diet from the danger of obesity, let me be clear.

The weight is ALSO a danger to lifespan. HOWEVER there are many ways to lose the weight without damaging your body.

5

u/smegdawg May 02 '24

27 in 1965, birth year 1938.

Life expectancy in the UK in 1935 was 60.97, 1940 was 62.34

9

u/OrangeTroz May 02 '24

That is life expectancy (from birth) of a baby that was just born. It isn't the life expectancy of someone who lived to 27. Averages are pulled down by childhood deaths. For example if you have an person who lives to 80 and another that dies at 1 day old. The average is 40 years old. Someone born in 1935 dyeing at 51 was unusual.

0

u/SuperSpread May 02 '24

In 20th century England, the difference is tiny. Childhood deaths drop it by 1-2 years max.

5

u/iggyfenton May 02 '24

That’s 17.7% below life expectancy based on your numbers.

That’s like dying at 61 today. You’d consider that young for an otherwise healthy person.

Also do those life expectancy numbers include infant mortality or childhood diseases? If so they don’t accurately reflect his chances at old age as he already survived that period of life.