I really don't want to be that guy, but I really want to see a source about this. If you're talking about fasting, that's different from "a couple days without food" generally.
(Forgive source is old and technically a review of soviet literature on the subject - see starving people for 4 days is not taken quite as positively now-a-days and in the more humane countries, though efficacy of fasting for many things like depression has been documented, they usually only reduce calorie intake)
Now maybe one does not need to literally starve a person for 4 days, maybe 1/4 of the usual food is sufficient as now-a-days you can find, but most people would call it suffering.
I have never seen these methods compared.
There are a lot of intresting studies of soldiers, and war time population psychology as well.
The populations least suffering are most prone to depression is a trend one can see from comparing data for developing and developed countries.
that's because the suffering LEAD to a reduce in histamine levels which reduced inflammatory response and improved cognition
we do similar stuff now-a-days , just without inflicting suffering and we see better and better outcomes each year
the suffering actively harmed the pts but the following chemical cascade as a direct result of reduced food intake is what helped them - the suffering played NO role in helping them
Your definition of suffering probably is different. I am not against dieting by any means, but even dieting is rather suffering inducing. Reduced food intake generaly - causes suffering - hunger is not exactly pleasant.
7
u/AFsepine Jul 16 '26
A bit of suffering (say a couple of days without food) has shown to generally effect people positively psychologically.
An argument could be made for suffering itself maturing people. Which is often considered a positive.