Connect with us

Living

Fasting: a holistic approach

24-hour, three-day or week-long fasts yield bounty of benefits

Published

on

fasting, gay news, Washington Blade
asting has physical and spiritual components experts say. (Blade file photo)

Most people who are basically fit but have gained and lost the same 10 pounds over and over know those last 10 are often the hardest to lose. If you have a lot of weight to lose and get serious about eating right and exercising, you can drop a lot of weight fairly quickly.

It gets doubly frustrating, then, when you’re used to that pace, but so close to your goal you hit a wall. Stymied by plateaus, last year I decided to experiment with intermittent fasting and researched it from a variety of perspectives.

The best overall resource I found was “The Complete Guide to Fasting: Heal Your Body Through Intermittent, Alternate-Day and Extended Fasting” (2016) by Jason Fung and Jimmy Moore. As the title suggests, there are multiple ways to fast. Merely skipping a meal or skipping two (basically 24-hour fasting) yield health benefits but they expand significantly the longer you fast.

The gist of the book is two-fold: 1. millions of years of evolution resulted in natural selection that is wildly out of whack with the way most of us in the U.S. live today. Our bodies learned to store fat for periods when it was usually a long time between meals, a fact of life in the hunter-gatherer societies of yore. But with less than 200 years behind us since the Industrial Revolution ended, our bodies haven’t caught up to the modern, often sedentary jobs and lives we lead today.

Fast food is ubiquitous, Sheets MTO is 24-7, food courts offer mostly unhealthful options (eating healthfully takes creativity and major proactivity!) and yeah, Whole Foods may have lots of healthful options, but you’d have to make six figures to buy lunch there everyday. So fasting — their second main point — is actually one of the fastest, simplest approaches one can take.

Fung and Moore also write that many illnesses and maladies can be improved with intermittent fasting, from cancer to arthritis to heart disease and more. Big pharma has conditioned us to seek meds for our ailments when often the simplest approach is to simply fast. It’s also the big secret the $72 billion U.S. weight loss industry doesn’t want you to think too much about. Simply stop shoving garbage into your mouth for a few days or a week and the need for a fancy weight loss program disappears.

“The Complete Guide” is thorough, authoritative and medically sound and walks you through the pros and cons of fasting for any length of time.

It also takes a lot of the fear out. If you’ve never fasted, you tend to imagine hunger pangs gradually increase in frequency and intensity until you’re ready to devour anything in sight like a crazed person. But it’s not like that at all. It’s much more akin to a busy work day where you didn’t have a chance to think about lunch until 4 p.m., then realized you weren’t nearly as famished as you’d have thought. Hunger comes and goes in waves during a longer fast (three days or more) and actually gets less bothersome once you’ve worked through the first missed meal. Keep busy and you’ll be surprised how relatively easy it is.

The downside of the book, which gets rather old by the end, is that its authors are huge advocates of the ketogenic diet. Practically every other page features some sort of keto plug. The nice thing about fasting is if you’re on keto already, fasting dovetails beautifully with it (you’ll automatically be in a ketogenic state after a couple days of fasting). I’ve tried keto, though (mostly because this book acts like it’s the best thing ever), and it’s just too restrictive for me for any kind of long-term plan. That said, though, “The Complete Guide to Fasting” is a great starting resource.

A fun read but not a very accurate depiction of fasting is a 2013 first-person article from GQ called “How the Terrible, Insufferable Six-Day Water Fast Made Me a New Man” by Phillip Toledano. It’s online if you wanna look it up. He writes wittily but basically does everything wrong. First, he spends his fasting week at a health center for monitoring (totally unnecessary unless you have serious medical issues going into it), tries to curtail his boredom by watching the Food Network (No! Keeping your mind occupied with non-food stuff is the best recipe for fasting success) and writes of severe headaches, restlessness and foul moods.

I had almost the total opposite reaction — I was astounded at how not a big deal it was once I got my mind off food. I won’t say it was a breeze (I’ve done two, one-week-long fasts) — I was counting down the days toward meal time for sure, but not because I was in agony or even that I was that hungry. I just missed the sensory pleasure of chewing and tasting food more than that I was extremely hungry. So take that article with a grain of salt.

I was also curious to explore fasting from a religious perspective. Those stubborn last 10 pounds were my main impetus, but if I could get some spiritual benefit too, why not? Jentezen Franklin in his book “Fasting: Opening the Door to a Deeper, More Intimate, more Powerful Relationship with God” draws a line between supposed original sin (the temptation was food!) to Christ’s period of a 40-day fast and the yin and yang of that juxtaposition in religious history. By the way, ever notice the figure on a crucifix never has love handles?; Of course diet then was vastly different from the sugar-laden garbage that passes for processed food in the U.S. today.

It’s from a pentecostal publisher that has produced some rather dubious (albeit bestselling) titles like “The Faith of George W. Bush,” so proceed with caution. While LGBT topics aren’t addressed, Franklin’s church (and its ilk) is not LGBT-affirming. His basic thesis, though, is that fasting is one component of three (along with giving and praying) that gets you to a higher spiritual plane than you previously thought possible. The weight loss is a bonus.

Fasting for spiritual reasons has components in other faiths as well which are addressed briefly in “The Complete Guide.”

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Advice

I don’t see the point in a relationship 

Life is short and I want to do whatever I want

Published

on

Going through life with a partner isn’t for everyone. (Photo by yanik88/Bigstock)

Michael,

I’m 34, and after being on the dating scene for about 12 years, I’m coming to the conclusion that I don’t want to be in a relationship. 

I don’t love hanging out with the same person over and over again. I don’t feel all gooey when I’ve been with someone for a while. I run out of things to say, and also, it just gets boring.

I like my space. I don’t like having to share the bathroom or have someone next to me all night, especially when they want to go to sleep holding me. I know that sounds like heaven to a lot of people but it just feels intrusive to me. 

It’s a pain to have to compromise what I want to do. When I want to go someplace on vacation, or try a restaurant, or get up early to go to the gym, or sleep in, I don’t want to have to run that by someone else and get their OK. Life’s short. I want to do what I want to do.

I feel like we are constantly bombarded with the message to date and find a mate, but I don’t really see the point.  I don’t think I’m an introvert—I have a lot of friends—but I also like to spend time by myself and not be accountable to anyone.

When I think about marriage, it seems like a very old-fashioned concept, developed for straight people who want to have children. Historically you needed one person to work and another one to stay home and raise the kids. And you needed to stay together to give your kids two parents and a stable home. I get that.

But if I’m not having kids, what’s the point? I don’t need a husband to have sex. I can and do hook up all the time. It’s so easy to find someone online. And I get to have a lot more variety when I’m single than when I’m dating. Even though my relationships are always open, when I am dating someone, I always hook up a lot less, because I have to worry about the boyfriend’s feelings being hurt if I hook up “too much.”

I know I sound unromantic and maybe selfish but this is how I see it.  

My friends are all about having a boyfriend. They think I’m being ridiculous. Can I get another opinion?

Michael replies:

You make great points. Relationships do require us to give up some of our independence. They can feel stifling at times. And when the excitement of a new partner fades, things will at times feel “boring” in all sorts of ways, including sex. You can choose to avoid all of this by remaining single.

But relationships also give us tremendous overlapping opportunities to grow, including:

Being pushed to develop a clear sense of self: When we must constantly decide what we are willing to do or not do as part of a couple; and when our partner inevitably and frequently has interests, values, and priorities that conflict with ours, then we are challenged, over and over, to decide what is most important to us and how we want to live our lives.

Frequent opportunities to build resilience: All those old issues from our past that get us upset or riled up? We have to work through them so that we can stay (pretty) calm rather than losing our minds when our buttons are pressed.  

Improving our ability to have hard conversations – and without rancor: Unless we’re able to disagree, speak up, or confront when it’s important to do so, we are going to twist ourselves into a pretzel striving to accommodate the other person. And being able to engage in tough talks in a loving way is necessary if we want to have a loving relationship.

Becoming a more generous person: You wrote that you like to have things your way. But part of life, whether or not we are partnered, involves being thoughtful, considerate, and willing to put someone else first at times. Great relationships require us to do all of these things regularly—and many of us find that contributing to the happiness of someone we care about can increase our own happiness.

Besides these ongoing challenges, relationships give us the experience of someone knowing us deeply, and knowing someone deeply.  There can be great comfort in going through life with someone with whom we have this intimate connection, along with ongoing shared experiences of trust, support, comfort, and love. Long-term companionship is also an adventure: Can we keep the relationship vibrant and fun as we both keep changing over time? 

If you choose to remain single: Many people play their friendships on the easy setting, keeping things pleasant, on-the-surface, and non-confrontational; and cutting people off when things aren’t going well. Hanging in there to deal with the rough stuff can lead to deeper, longer friendships, and plenty of personal growth.

I do have a question for you: I am curious what sort of relationships you saw growing up, and what your own relationship experiences have been.  

Intimate relationships aren’t for everyone, and you get to decide what is right for you. But if your negative view of relationships is influenced by having witnessed or experienced intrusive or just plain awful relationships, maybe you want to do some work (therapy, for example) to heal from this stuff, rather than letting your past limit your future. A healthy relationship means being part of a couple while also remaining a vibrant individual, not being stifled, bored, and losing your independence.  

(Michael Radkowsky, Psy.D. is a licensed psychologist who works with couples and individuals in D.C., Maryland, Virginia, and New York. He can be found online at michaelradkowsky.com. All identifying information has been changed for reasons of confidentiality. Have a question? Send it to [email protected].)

Continue Reading

Autos

Wagons ho! High-class, head-turning haulers

Automakers still offer a few good traditional station wagons

Published

on

2026 Volvo V60 Cross Country

As a teenager, one of the first cars I drove — and fell in love with — was our family’s hulking full-size wagon. It stretched over 19 feet in length and weighed a whopping 5,300 pounds. That’s three feet longer and 1,000 heavier than, say, a Ford Explorer today. 

But this Leviathan felt safe and practical, especially when tootling around town with my crew or traveling solo cross-country. Of course, this hauler was also an eco-disaster. 

Luckily, that’s not the case today. And even though the number of traditional station wagons keeps shrinking, automakers are still offering a few gems.    

VOLVO V60 CROSS COUNTRY

$54,000

MPG: 23 city/31 highway

0 to 60 mph: 6.6 seconds

Cargo space: 51 cu. ft. (rear seats folded)

PROS: Elegant design. Composed handling. Top safety features.

CONS: So-so power. Modest rear legroom. Only two trim levels.    

The 2026 Volvo V60 Cross Country doesn’t cry for attention — and that’s the point. This is the automotive equivalent of Kristen Stewart, a celebrity who’s confident in her own skin and sees no need to post about it. 

Under the hood, there’s a four-cylinder turbo engine paired with a mild-hybrid system, producing 247 horsepower. You won’t outrun other drivers, but there is a sense of calm authority when accelerating. The standard all-wheel drive and 8.1 inches of ground clearance mean this wagon is ready for dirt roads, bad weather or a spontaneous weekend jaunt. 

And inside? Scandinavian minimalism at its finest. Clean lines. Gorgeous materials. Google-based infotainment that mostly works — though occasionally the system could be a bit faster, at least for my taste. The ride is smooth, composed and quiet, even if acceleration feels more “measured sip” than “espresso shot.” 

But here’s the twist: After more than a decade, this is the final Volvo wagon in the U.S. Its farewell tour ends in 2026. That alone gives it collector-car status.

MERCEDES-AMG E53 WAGON

$95,000

MPG: 21 city/25 highway

0 to 60 mph: 3.4 seconds

Cargo space: 64.6 cu. ft. (rear seats folded)

PROS: Supercar vibe. Hybrid versatility. Stunning interior.

CONS: Some fussy controls. Can feel heavy when cornering.    

If the Volvo V60 Cross Country is subtle, the 2026 Mercedes-AMG E53 Wagon is a screamer. It’s like being at a Lil Nas X concert: flashy, high energy, and full of shock and awe.  

This performance wagon — a plug-in hybrid, no less — pushes well over 500 horsepower (and in some configurations over 600 horsepower), launching from 0 to 60 mph as fast as a $300,000 Aston Martin supercar.

Yes, deep down, this is still a wagon. But you also can do a Costco run in something that could embarrass sports cars at a stoplight. That duality is delicious.

Inside, Mercedes leans all the way in. The high-tech Superscreen setup stretches across the dash. Ambient lighting glows like a curated art installation. The 4D surround-sound audio literally pulses through the seats. It’s immersive. Borderline excessive. And entirely the point.

Rear-axle steering helps mask the size of this car, but there’s no hiding the weight — it’s a big, powerful machine. Still, this hauler handles far better than physics suggests it should.

PORSCHE TAYCAN CROSS TURISMO

$121,000

Range: 265 miles

0 to 60 mph: 2.8 seconds

Cargo space: 41 cu. ft. (rear seats folded)

PROS: Lightning fast. Space-age design. EV smoothness.

CONS: Very pricey. Options add up quickly. Limited rear visibility.    

The Porsche Taycan Cross Turismo completely rewrites the wagon formula. Fully electric. Shockingly fast. Designed like it belongs in the Louvre.

Performance is instant. Depending on trim level, you’re looking at 0-to-60 mph in less than 3 seconds. No exuberant engine noise — just that smooth, purring EV surge.

Handling? Pure Porsche. Low center of gravity thanks to the battery-pack placement. Precision that makes winding roads feel like choreography. And then — hello — there’s also a Gravel Mode for light off-road use.

Inside, the style is restrained but high-tech. Digital displays dominate, including a 10.3-inch passenger side touchscreen. Yet the layout feels intentional rather than overwhelming. Build quality is exceptional. Options, including leather-free materials and an active-leveling system for hard cornering, are endless — and expensive.

Range varies by model. But as with any EV, your lifestyle (and charging access) matters. 

Overall, this is a wagon that looks and behaves like one helluva class act.

Continue Reading

Advice

My family voted for Trump and I cut off contact

Now my father is ill and I don’t know what to do

Published

on

How should you react when family members support Trump? (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

Dear Michael,

I stopped talking to my family last year because they all voted for Trump. It’s not like they didn’t know whom they were voting for — they’d already had four years of seeing him in action.

I decided that I couldn’t remain in contact with people whom I felt wanted to take away my rights as a gay man. That is what they essentially did by voting for Trump.

They had come to my wedding in 2012, they had welcomed my husband and me into their homes for the holidays for our entire relationship, so I couldn’t believe how little they actually cared about me and my community. I was profoundly hurt.

They’ve reached out but I have been too angry at their hypocrisy to engage in more than a perfunctory way. I miss them, sure, but as I’ve watched our community be attacked, I just get so angry that I don’t want to talk. I certainly don’t want to hear them justify bigotry and hatred.

Now one of my siblings has reached out to let me know that my father’s health is rapidly declining. I’m wondering if I should rethink my decision and reach out to him, maybe even visit, before he dies.

But then I think of ICE’s attack on our country and the removal of the Pride flag from Stonewall and I don’t want to talk to people who support what is happening to vulnerable, marginalized people and the LGBTQ community.

My father was a good father to me. Even when I first came out to him, he was loving and supportive. I can’t square his behavior personally toward me with his support of this regime. The hypocrisy makes me so angry. How could he purport to love me and then vote against my freedoms?

I would love some suggestions about how to square my two opposing viewpoints.

Michael replies:

Many years ago, a great mentor taught me that the one thing you can count on in a relationship is learning to tolerate disappointment: Both being a disappointment, and being disappointed in the other person. This is true for love relationships and it’s also true for other significant relationships. All of us are different in some major ways and so we are bound at times to disappoint our loved ones in major ways, and to be disappointed by them in major ways.

That is why I’m not a fan of purity tests. To expect that someone must think like you (much less vote like you) in order for you to have a relationship with them is unrealistic, impractical, and sometimes damaging.

Of course, a person may hold some beliefs that give you reason not to want to have any connection to them. But is that the case here?

From your description, your family has always been loving and supportive of you as a gay man. That is no small thing. They seem to care about you enough to have continued to reach out, even though you have stopped talking to them. 

Perhaps they had some other reasons for voting as they did, other than to roll back LGBTQ rights and to attack immigrants.

Instead of wondering how they could be so hypocritical, how about talking with them and striving to understand their choices? I don’t know what they will say, and you may hear different answers from your various family members. But at least you will get some clarity, rather than presuming that they made their voting choices from a place of malice. Then you will be in a better position to decide if you want a relationship going forward.

Another point to consider: Very few things are set in stone. Even if your family made their voting choices based on holding positions that you neither like nor respect, they may be open to shifting their views over time. One way to perhaps influence their thinking is by engaging with them, sharing your thoughts, and asking them to consider the possible consequences of their actions. If you choose to re-engage with them, two points to consider: 

First, don’t expect that you will change their minds. You can advocate for what you want, but you have to let go of the results.

Second, they are more likely to consider your points if you do not approach them from a judgmental, self-righteous stance. 

Many years ago, when I was newly a vegetarian, I was eager to challenge and “educate” friends who weren’t following my dietary ideas. Guess what? It didn’t work. Then I got some great advice: A great way to influence others to consider eating fewer animals was to serve them delicious vegetarian food.

The same point is true here. We can’t beat people over the head to agree with us. But if we approach them with some kindness, rather than with the certainty that we hold the moral high ground, we may help them see a bigger picture.

And sometimes, we too may see a bigger picture.

Michael Radkowsky, Psy.D. is a licensed psychologist who works with couples and individuals in D.C., Maryland, Virginia, and New York. He can be found online at michaelradkowsky.com. All identifying information has been changed for reasons of confidentiality. Have a question? Send it to [email protected].

Continue Reading

Popular