By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Which would you choose? Not eat for 10 days? Not play any game for 1 year?

 

What would you choose if you were made to do either of these?

Not Eat for 10 days. (Food is over rated!) 59 45.04%
 
Not play any Game for 1 y... 72 54.96%
 
Total:131

Considering you will probably be in the hospital if you don't eat at all for 10 days, I think I will pick no video games for 1 year.



Money can't buy happiness. Just video games, which make me happy.

Around the Network

No videogames for 1 year. There are other source of entertainment out there. But nothing compares to the taste of delicious food. Not even Shadow of the Colossus.



Kirameo said:
Cirio said:

From Merriam-Webster Definition of FAST

intransitive verb
1
: to abstain from food
2
: to eat sparingly or abstain from some foods

Your own definition from the dictionary says otherwise.

Still, when people refer to fasting, they most of the time mean abstaining from food entirely. Any other meaning you give to fasting will be a sub-branch and needs clarification.  It's like saying "I slept for 4 days". It could mean that you were asleep for 4 days or that you had regular sleep for 4 days; if you don't clarify, and based on context, the former is the most likely to be infered  meaning.

What are you talking about? And the example you gave made no sense. What are you basing your "most of the time" claim from? You either eat sparingly (ie: 1 meal a day then fast for the rest) or you go for a complete fast for a day. In context to the topic, fasting for 10 days is unhealthy and not recommended for one to do.



Cirio said:
Kirameo said:
Cirio said:

From Merriam-Webster Definition of FAST

intransitive verb
1
: to abstain from food
2
: to eat sparingly or abstain from some foods

Your own definition from the dictionary says otherwise.

Still, when people refer to fasting, they most of the time mean abstaining from food entirely. Any other meaning you give to fasting will be a sub-branch and needs clarification.  It's like saying "I slept for 4 days". It could mean that you were asleep for 4 days or that you had regular sleep for 4 days; if you don't clarify, and based on context, the former is the most likely to be infered  meaning.

What are you talking about? And the example you gave made no sense. What are you basing your "most of the time" claim from? You either eat sparingly (ie: 1 meal a day then fast for the rest) or you go for a complete fast for a day. In context to the topic, fasting for 10 days is unhealthy and not recommended for one to do.


From simple logic we can say that what YOU are saying makes no sense. By your logic I could say that I fast everyday because I don't eat at 3 pm. It's just stupid. Fasting means not eating food for a prolonged period.



 

luvtospooge said:
No videogames for 1 year. There are other source of entertainment out there. But nothing compares to the taste of delicious food. Not even Shadow of the Colossus.

What about colossi steake?



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

Around the Network
Kirameo said:
Cirio said:
Kirameo said:

Still, when people refer to fasting, they most of the time mean abstaining from food entirely. Any other meaning you give to fasting will be a sub-branch and needs clarification.  It's like saying "I slept for 4 days". It could mean that you were asleep for 4 days or that you had regular sleep for 4 days; if you don't clarify, and based on context, the former is the most likely to be infered  meaning.

What are you talking about? And the example you gave made no sense. What are you basing your "most of the time" claim from? You either eat sparingly (ie: 1 meal a day then fast for the rest) or you go for a complete fast for a day. In context to the topic, fasting for 10 days is unhealthy and not recommended for one to do.


From simple logic we can say that what YOU are saying makes no sense. By your logic I could say that I fast everyday because I don't eat at 3 pm. It's just stupid. Fasting means not eating food for a prolonged period.

Which is exactly what you do when you eat one meal then fast for the entire day. I don't understand this "simple" logic you're preaching since what I'm saying is also a definition of fasting as provided in the dictionary definition you gave. I'm also saying that "fasting" for 10 days (which is starving yourself rather than fasting) is unhealthly and not beneficial to one's health. I don't even see what your "argument" has to do with this topic since I'm at least trying to explain the health concerns from starving yourself for 10 days while you're busy trying to show how your definition of fasting is somehow the "right" one. If you still want to continue this discussion in a civil manner, then talk to me through messages because I don't wish to derail this topic any further. Otherwise, don't reply to this.



Cirio said:
Kirameo said:
Cirio said:
Kirameo said:

Still, when people refer to fasting, they most of the time mean abstaining from food entirely. Any other meaning you give to fasting will be a sub-branch and needs clarification.  It's like saying "I slept for 4 days". It could mean that you were asleep for 4 days or that you had regular sleep for 4 days; if you don't clarify, and based on context, the former is the most likely to be infered  meaning.

What are you talking about? And the example you gave made no sense. What are you basing your "most of the time" claim from? You either eat sparingly (ie: 1 meal a day then fast for the rest) or you go for a complete fast for a day. In context to the topic, fasting for 10 days is unhealthy and not recommended for one to do.


From simple logic we can say that what YOU are saying makes no sense. By your logic I could say that I fast everyday because I don't eat at 3 pm. It's just stupid. Fasting means not eating food for a prolonged period.

Which is exactly what you do when you eat one meal then fast for the entire day. I don't understand this "simple" logic you're preaching since what I'm saying is also a definition of fasting as provided in the dictionary definition you gave. I'm also saying that "fasting" for 10 days (which is starving yourself rather than fasting) is unhealthly and not beneficial to one's health. I don't even see what your "argument" has to do with this topic since I'm at least trying to explain the health concerns from starving yourself for 10 days while you're busy trying to show how your definition of fasting is somehow the "right" one. If you still want to continue this discussion in a civil manner, then talk to me through messages because I don't wish to derail this topic any further. Otherwise, don't reply to this.

I already posted a lenghty article on the matter. If you don't want to read it, that's your problem.



 

My max was 2 weeks without eating once (wasnt healthy like I did it though). I had a lot on my mind back then and wasnt sleeping much also. I didnt even thought about eating.

The first days are the worst after that it becomes better slowly. Everyone can be 10 days without food our body is BUILD to do that. Modern Humans and Humans from the Stoneage have the exact same genes. Nothing has changed between back then and now and back then food was very scarce in the winter months. Our bodys are designed to survive long periods of no food. Actually the plentiful food is responsible for the biggest part of sick people in the west and is not good for your health. Even looking thin all the fat inside you is the dangerous thing liver heart arteries are mostly affected. The act of processing food alone consumes the human body.

To the not drinking again 4 days without liquids is max ! Not 7 not 10 its 4 !

To 10 days not eating its NO PROBLEM at all. People are just whiny about it but that doesnt mean it should be hard for anyone. You just have to drink more at the beginning to fill your stomach which shrinks after a few days.

Please all stop this nonsense about not eating for 10 days makes you go to the hospital its just stupid unless you have a serious condition are pregnant or in growth or old.



I haven't tried going prolonged times without food but it is extremely difficult for me to sleep on an empty stomach.



Allfreedom99 said:
IncredibleZombieMan said:
I'd rather starve for 10 days than eat. Lol, I have gone without food for 3 days before and it was painful, but for games...

Hey first post. welcome to VGChartz!

And I agree with you...for games...I think I would sacrifice quite a bit....within reason of course. :)

Thanks for the welcome, sorry i didnt reply, im still figuring this website out :)