Claims of anomalously long fasting: An assessment of the evidence from investigated cases.

BACKGROUND

Throughout history and to the present day, there have been reports of people claiming inedia, i.e., an anomalous long-term abstinence from food or from food and fluid. Some were isolated and monitored and their abstinences confirmed. This raises the question of whether there may be an anomaly with wide implications that science has overlooked. On the other hand, there have been cases of exposed fraud. The reports on the studies are scattered and it can be difficult to judge their rigor and the strength and implications of their evidence. A critical evaluation seems useful.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives were to obtain an overview of investigated cases of claimed inedia, to assess the anomaly of the claims and study results, to assess the quality of the studies, and to identify deception methods to inform future safeguards.

METHOD

I developed criteria for differentiating normal from anomalous nutrition and fasting and for assessing the quality of inedia studies. Studies found through a systematic search were then assessed and the features of cases of fraud extracted.

RESULTS

47 eligible investigations of 38 claimants were found. Out of the 38 cases, results were assessed as (seemingly) anomalous in 11, with nine cases of monitored food and fluid deprivation ranging from 14 to 68 days (median 28 days), and two cases of food deprivation for 365 and 411 days. In 17 cases, anomaly was assessed as not confirmed due to issues with study design or reporting. Fraud was established in 10 cases. Deception methods were creative. Post-1900 studies were also assessed for quality. Quality was not considered adequate in any.

CONCLUSIONS

I consider the evidential status of inedia unconfirmed as no assessed study had both anomalous findings and impeccable quality. However, quality was often downgraded due to reporting issues and it cannot be concluded in reverse that all claimants with anomalous results were able to deceive the investigators. The results of many studies are curious and demand further research. The conducted analysis provides guidance for improving rigor and transparency in future studies.

Copyright © 2020 The Author. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.