FOR David Blaine, it has all begun beautifully. Even before the magician stepped into his glass prison and was hoisted high above the river Thames, controversy was simmering nicely. True, the start of his stunt last week could have been more sensational, but it still earned him front-page headlines in Britain.
For anyone who missed it, here are the basics. Blaine, an American illusionist with a penchant for feats of endurance, is suspended in a plexiglas box measuring 2 metres high, 2 metres long and a metre wide. With him he has clothes, blankets, a mat, journal, pens, lip balm, nappies (diapers) and wet wipes. He intends to stay in the box for 44 days with no food. His only nourishment will be plain water.
The stunt has prompted howls of outrage and accusations of tastelessness. Should Blaine be doing this when nearly a billion people have no choice but to go hungry? Doesn鈥檛 it also trivialise hunger strikes in pursuit of political or moral principles 鈥� a tactic used by Irish republicans in the 1980s and today by hundreds of protesting prisoners in Turkey, Chile and the Philippines?
Advertisement
The answer to both these questions is undoubtedly yes. The fact that Blaine鈥檚 career has been littered with accusations of fakery doesn鈥檛 help. It is in the nature of his trade that people question whether his stunts are really about endurance or just trickery. But if it is offensive to seek celebrity through starvation, how much worse is it to court fame from the illusion of doing so? Blaine, of course, knows this perfectly well. With every outraged statement from London鈥檚 mayor, Ken Livingstone, fascination in Blaine鈥檚 stunt grows.
And let鈥檚 be honest. It is fascinating. Bad taste or not, it is impossible not to wonder at Blaine鈥檚 bravery and/or stupidity. Can he really go the distance? What will happen to his mind and body during the fast?
On this point Blaine claims to know what he is in for, but in truth he cannot. Nobody is certain of all the changes that affect a human body when it is deprived of food for 44 days. 鈥淭he evidence is limited,鈥� says Susan Jebb, head of nutrition and health at the UK Medical Research Council鈥檚 Human Nutrition Research Centre in Cambridge. 鈥淣ot very many people truly starve for that long.鈥� Much of what we do know comes from experiments carried out in the early 20th century, when ethics committees were a distant prospect, or from sources such as hunger strikes and famines that are difficult to research systematically.
But there is plenty we do know. The most obvious consequence for Blaine, even if he pulls a fast one, is that he will lose a lot of weight. A man who starved himself to death in 1917 lost 41 per cent of his body weight in 63 days. And in 1981, the Irish republican hunger striker Bobby Sands lost 30 per cent of his body weight in 66 days. Blaine says he expects to lose about 23 kilograms, which seems about right, and the chances are he will be able to sustain this sort of weight loss. Before his stunt began he had put on plenty of weight, and the main determinant of how long starving people can last is how much body fat they have.
After about two days of fasting, the body starts to shift into 鈥渟tarvation mode鈥�. Fat breaks down, releasing fatty acids and glycerol, which is converted into glucose. Skeletal muscle burns the fatty acids, preserving the precious glucose for the organ that needs it 鈥� the brain. Meanwhile, burning fatty acids produces 鈥渒etone bodies鈥�, which can also be used as fuel by the brain. By the end of week 3, the body has switched completely to starvation mode, and the brain is finding 80 per cent of its energy from ketones.
From then on there is a gradual decline. The muscles and most of the internal organs waste away, though the brain, skeleton and gonads seem to be exempt. When all the fat has been metabolised, death follows quickly. But Blaine will not get anywhere near that point.
If he escapes permanent physical damage, he should also remain unscathed mentally, if starvation experiments on conscientious objectors in the second world war are anything to go by. What鈥檚 more, psychological studies on people who starve themselves for a reason 鈥� anorexics, for example 鈥� suggest that hunger is easy to ignore and can even be interpreted positively. According to Peter Rogers of the University of Bristol in the UK, who studies the psychological effects of diet, Blaine鈥檚 stunts 鈥� if they are real 鈥� have shown him to be a very robust individual.
But there is one factor that could be Blaine鈥檚 undoing. If he really is taking water and nothing else, he will start to get seriously short of salt. After three weeks, this will force down his blood pressure, he will get dizzy and eventually pass out. The Irish republican hunger strikers took salt supplements to avoid this.
So it looks as though Blaine cannot win. If he does take just plain water, he will be unconscious by the end of September and the stunt will end early. If he lasts the distance, on the other hand, it will be highly likely he has been lying to us. Now there鈥檚 a reason to put aside your qualms and start watching.