5 ms·

Although I agree that our own bodies tend to be pretty awesome and require less help than many people think, your argument in this case is a little shaky. We l

by jsankey 12y ago

Although I agree that our own bodies tend to be pretty awesome and require less help than many people think, your argument in this case is a little shaky. We live in a very different environment to our ancestors and expose our skin to all sorts of things that they never could have. Even ignoring all the new compounds we interact with daily, just moving ourselves around the planet (to areas with different sun exposure, as a key example) can have a big impact on our health.

thrownaway2424 12y ago
You won't see me hewing to some paleo diet or otherwise worshipping my bark-eating forebears. But I think people do themselves a disservice with all the crud they put in their skin. Some of these things are required only because of the previous thing applied to their skin. Hand washing is nice and I recommend it but equally important (in terms of disease transmission) are the discipline to not pick your nose and rub your eyes. Basic stuff.
- jahmed 12y ago
  Agreed, I'm a happy modern human that isn't particularly worried about potential harms from chemicals or GMOs. I do though use baking soda and vinegar for my hair and its so much better than using shampoo and conditioner. Aggressively stripping oil from your hair and then putting it back didn't make sense once I learned about it. I'm curious about this http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/25/magazine/my-no-soap-no-shampoo-bacteria-rich-hygiene-experiment.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/25/magazine/my-no-soap-no-sha... but not nearly brave enough.
  - ccozan 12y ago
    I actually did this experiment. I had the chance to be alone for 3 months so I accepted the challenge. It actually worked. I used only and only water to wash. In the beginning hot, then slowly working to a quite cold shower. That helped out too. The effect? My hair is since then never better. I have no more dandruff, no rash or other headskin condition. The body took it very well. Using only water and a turkish rubbing cloth. I didn't smell. I even asked a few colleagues ( female too ) to tell me if they noticed something about me, and there was nothing out of the ordinary. My armpits were sweating but no unpleasant smell would be produced. Some women found me even more attractive ;), but this might be subjective. Reason for the lack of smell is most probably the natural bacteria that eat all of my body output ( sweat, dead skin, etc ). The cold shower was keeping this bacteria alive, since hot water has some effect ( dilutuing fat and killing some of them ). In the end, was a positive experiment. I stopp it after this 3 months, due to home arrival of my significant other :).
    - scroy 12y ago
      If it was working well, why stop when your SO arrived? Did she not, ah, agree about the lack of smell?
    - gambiting 12y ago
      >>Reason for the lack of smell is most probably the natural bacteria that eat all of my body output ( sweat, dead skin, etc ). The cold shower was keeping this bacteria alive, since hot water has some effect ( dilutuing fat and killing some of them ). But....this is exactly what produces the smell. Sweat, dead skin - they have absolutely no smell. Zero. Smell is produced by bacteria feeding off your sweat, and their waste is smelly - that's why you are very unlikely to smell straight away after intense physical exercise, where you are literally covered in sweat - but leave it on for a few hours and it turns super smelly.
    - danneu 12y ago
      I tried it too. Vinegar in my hair just made it a greasy mess that now smelled like vinegar, which is pretty how you smell when you don't shower to begin with. Baking soda was necessary but didn't put a dent in the stench of vinegar. After a month, I was happy to lather my body with shampoo and other commercial chemicals.
      - ccozan 12y ago
        Mind you, I using _only_ water and nothing else.
  - daughart 12y ago
    Chemicals like BPA and GMOs aren't equivalent in any sense.
    - daughart 12y ago
      Thanks for the down-vote, but seriously do you have an argument here? Even Monsanto's "Roundup Ready" GMOs merely express a modified version of an enzyme that allows them to synthesize essential amino acids even in the presence of the pesticide. There is no rational argument for why modifications to the DNA region that regulate production of the enzyme or modifications to the enzyme could be dangerous in any way... Even when ingested, these macromolecules would be digested rather than absorbed, as in the case of a bioactive small molecule that is readily absorbed from consumer plastics (e.g. BPA). FUD...
      - Retric 12y ago
        Your assuming GMO's where modified in exactly the way intended. Realistically, attempting to insert segment X into something’s DNA and verifying the organism produces Y in no way insures that the only DNA modification was inserting X or that the only change from X is producing Y. PS: My sister created GMO's for a while in her words the process is way less controlled than generally portrayed.
        dragonwriter 12y ago
        > Your assuming GMO's where modified in exactly the way intended. Realistically, attempting to insert segment X into something’s DNA and verifying the organism produces Y in no way insures that the only DNA modification was inserting X or that the only change from X is producing Y. Both the processes and the regulatory compliance requirements around GMOs provide a lot stronger (though, still, not perfect) assurance of that for GMOs than the processes and (near complete lack of) regulatory clearance requirements around crop modifications that result in rapid genome changes but which are considered "traditional breeding" rather than "GMO" because they don't involve directly inserting genetic material from a different organism. (I have an immediate family member who works doing both kinds of crop modifications, and has been involved providing science support for regulatory clearance of products, as well.)

by jsankey 12y ago

thrownaway2424 12y ago

You won't see me hewing to some paleo diet or otherwise worshipping my bark-eating forebears. But I think people do themselves a disservice with all the crud they put in their skin. Some of these things are required only because of the previous thing applied to their skin. Hand washing is nice and I recommend it but equally important (in terms of disease transmission) are the discipline to not pick your nose and rub your eyes. Basic stuff.

jahmed 12y ago
Agreed, I'm a happy modern human that isn't particularly worried about potential harms from chemicals or GMOs. I do though use baking soda and vinegar for my hair and its so much better than using shampoo and conditioner. Aggressively stripping oil from your hair and then putting it back didn't make sense once I learned about it. I'm curious about this http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/25/magazine/my-no-soap-no-shampoo-bacteria-rich-hygiene-experiment.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/25/magazine/my-no-soap-no-sha... but not nearly brave enough.
- ccozan 12y ago
  I actually did this experiment. I had the chance to be alone for 3 months so I accepted the challenge. It actually worked. I used only and only water to wash. In the beginning hot, then slowly working to a quite cold shower. That helped out too. The effect? My hair is since then never better. I have no more dandruff, no rash or other headskin condition. The body took it very well. Using only water and a turkish rubbing cloth. I didn't smell. I even asked a few colleagues ( female too ) to tell me if they noticed something about me, and there was nothing out of the ordinary. My armpits were sweating but no unpleasant smell would be produced. Some women found me even more attractive ;), but this might be subjective. Reason for the lack of smell is most probably the natural bacteria that eat all of my body output ( sweat, dead skin, etc ). The cold shower was keeping this bacteria alive, since hot water has some effect ( dilutuing fat and killing some of them ). In the end, was a positive experiment. I stopp it after this 3 months, due to home arrival of my significant other :).
  - scroy 12y ago
    If it was working well, why stop when your SO arrived? Did she not, ah, agree about the lack of smell?
  - gambiting 12y ago
    >>Reason for the lack of smell is most probably the natural bacteria that eat all of my body output ( sweat, dead skin, etc ). The cold shower was keeping this bacteria alive, since hot water has some effect ( dilutuing fat and killing some of them ). But....this is exactly what produces the smell. Sweat, dead skin - they have absolutely no smell. Zero. Smell is produced by bacteria feeding off your sweat, and their waste is smelly - that's why you are very unlikely to smell straight away after intense physical exercise, where you are literally covered in sweat - but leave it on for a few hours and it turns super smelly.
  - danneu 12y ago
    I tried it too. Vinegar in my hair just made it a greasy mess that now smelled like vinegar, which is pretty how you smell when you don't shower to begin with. Baking soda was necessary but didn't put a dent in the stench of vinegar. After a month, I was happy to lather my body with shampoo and other commercial chemicals.
    - ccozan 12y ago
      Mind you, I using _only_ water and nothing else.
- daughart 12y ago
  Chemicals like BPA and GMOs aren't equivalent in any sense.
  - daughart 12y ago
    Thanks for the down-vote, but seriously do you have an argument here? Even Monsanto's "Roundup Ready" GMOs merely express a modified version of an enzyme that allows them to synthesize essential amino acids even in the presence of the pesticide. There is no rational argument for why modifications to the DNA region that regulate production of the enzyme or modifications to the enzyme could be dangerous in any way... Even when ingested, these macromolecules would be digested rather than absorbed, as in the case of a bioactive small molecule that is readily absorbed from consumer plastics (e.g. BPA). FUD...
    - Retric 12y ago
      Your assuming GMO's where modified in exactly the way intended. Realistically, attempting to insert segment X into something’s DNA and verifying the organism produces Y in no way insures that the only DNA modification was inserting X or that the only change from X is producing Y. PS: My sister created GMO's for a while in her words the process is way less controlled than generally portrayed.
      - dragonwriter 12y ago
        > Your assuming GMO's where modified in exactly the way intended. Realistically, attempting to insert segment X into something’s DNA and verifying the organism produces Y in no way insures that the only DNA modification was inserting X or that the only change from X is producing Y. Both the processes and the regulatory compliance requirements around GMOs provide a lot stronger (though, still, not perfect) assurance of that for GMOs than the processes and (near complete lack of) regulatory clearance requirements around crop modifications that result in rapid genome changes but which are considered "traditional breeding" rather than "GMO" because they don't involve directly inserting genetic material from a different organism. (I have an immediate family member who works doing both kinds of crop modifications, and has been involved providing science support for regulatory clearance of products, as well.)