4 ms·

Strictly uninformed logic hear, but it seems considering "excretion" and "detoxification" mutually exclusive concepts is not correct. If you were putting toxins

Strictly uninformed logic hear, but it seems considering "excretion" and "detoxification" mutually exclusive concepts is not correct. If you were putting toxins (of any definition) into your body, slightly faster than your liver/skin/lungs could remove them, they would slowly build up. Perhaps they would make you feel sick before they killed you. Or perhaps the filter rate is proportional to the current level, so you reach an equilibrium at a point that makes you feel ill, but doesn't kill you. If all this is in any way valid, then we might hypothesize that simply stopping putting "toxins" into your body for a period would allow a daily net loss as your body filtered them out. This would not require any special "cleanse", but simply living strictly on foods/drinks that did not contain whatever stuff you were trying to eliminate. This might allow them to decrease to a level where you felt better. Perhaps after that you would go back to your old life-style and let the "toxins" build up again, or you could input them at a level that your body could eliminate them. Apart from aversion to the now coopted phrase "cleanse", could someone with actual knowledge say whether any of this conjecture aligns with actually physiology/metabolism?

dalke 12y ago
Please don't project your ignorance and confusion on others. It is arrogant. To be more precise, the article defines detox as: "the idea that you can flush your system of impurities and leave your organs squeaky clean and raring to go", and further adds that this "is a scam." It then goes into details. You say you are uninformed on the topic, yet refuse to accept the article's own definition. Then at the end your comment implies that neither the author of the article nor I have "actual knowledge" on the topic. Excretion is what your body does. It excretes dead cells, it excretes urea, it excretes CO2, it excretes all sorts of other waste products that it creates itself, as well as those that enter the body, like cellulose and alcohol. If you want to expand the definition of detoxification to include breathing, taking a leak or a dump, throwing up, etc. then what term do you use for the products and methods that the detox industry, practitioners, and advocates use? You see that distinction in the article: “there are two types of detox: one is respectable and the other isn’t.” You don't have one. Instead, that expanded definition only really helps to confuse the issue. You observe "If you were putting toxins (of any definition) into your body, slightly faster than your liver/skin/lungs could remove them, they would slowly build up." .. That is absolutely true. If you are exposed to carbon monoxide then removing yourself (or since you've probably falling unconscious, being moved) to some place without CO will help your body recover, and being given O2 can help. It's also irrelevant. You are granting the premise of the detox industry by assuming there is a build-up of toxins in the first place! It's not a "of any definition", it's that they can't list the toxins and show that the treatment leads to a decrease in those levels and has a positive health outcome. The OP wrote "fasting is probably the most effective way" to detox. That's wrong. The most effective way to lower your levels of X, for a wide range of X, is to stop being exposed to X. If you have a build-up of tar in your lungs from smoking, then fasting will do diddly-squat. And the same applies to all sorts of things that aren't toxins, like allergens, or sunlight (which can cause a sunburn) or flashing lights (which may trigger a seizure) or open spaces (which may cause a panic attack).
- sopooneo 12y ago
  I post questions, born of ignorance, that I wish to be corrected or informed about. Most of what I know, I've learned by this method. If I come across as supporting the detox industry, I apologize, as I didn't mean to. I don't. The article merely brought up other thoughts that I hoped to learn more about.
  - dalke 12y ago
    No, you didn't come across as supporting the detox industry. You came across as arrogant or lazy. Your own willful ignorance does not give you superior claim to reject the statements of others; which is what you did.

dalke 12y ago

Please don't project your ignorance and confusion on others. It is arrogant. To be more precise, the article defines detox as: "the idea that you can flush your system of impurities and leave your organs squeaky clean and raring to go", and further adds that this "is a scam." It then goes into details. You say you are uninformed on the topic, yet refuse to accept the article's own definition. Then at the end your comment implies that neither the author of the article nor I have "actual knowledge" on the topic. Excretion is what your body does. It excretes dead cells, it excretes urea, it excretes CO2, it excretes all sorts of other waste products that it creates itself, as well as those that enter the body, like cellulose and alcohol. If you want to expand the definition of detoxification to include breathing, taking a leak or a dump, throwing up, etc. then what term do you use for the products and methods that the detox industry, practitioners, and advocates use? You see that distinction in the article: “there are two types of detox: one is respectable and the other isn’t.” You don't have one. Instead, that expanded definition only really helps to confuse the issue. You observe "If you were putting toxins (of any definition) into your body, slightly faster than your liver/skin/lungs could remove them, they would slowly build up." .. That is absolutely true. If you are exposed to carbon monoxide then removing yourself (or since you've probably falling unconscious, being moved) to some place without CO will help your body recover, and being given O2 can help. It's also irrelevant. You are granting the premise of the detox industry by assuming there is a build-up of toxins in the first place! It's not a "of any definition", it's that they can't list the toxins and show that the treatment leads to a decrease in those levels and has a positive health outcome. The OP wrote "fasting is probably the most effective way" to detox. That's wrong. The most effective way to lower your levels of X, for a wide range of X, is to stop being exposed to X. If you have a build-up of tar in your lungs from smoking, then fasting will do diddly-squat. And the same applies to all sorts of things that aren't toxins, like allergens, or sunlight (which can cause a sunburn) or flashing lights (which may trigger a seizure) or open spaces (which may cause a panic attack).

sopooneo 12y ago
I post questions, born of ignorance, that I wish to be corrected or informed about. Most of what I know, I've learned by this method. If I come across as supporting the detox industry, I apologize, as I didn't mean to. I don't. The article merely brought up other thoughts that I hoped to learn more about.
- dalke 12y ago
  No, you didn't come across as supporting the detox industry. You came across as arrogant or lazy. Your own willful ignorance does not give you superior claim to reject the statements of others; which is what you did.