5 ms·

I think clearing out your bowels would be considered de-toxifying. As, much of that stuff just stays inside your intestines unless you do some kind of colon cle

I think clearing out your bowels would be considered de-toxifying. As, much of that stuff just stays inside your intestines unless you do some kind of colon cleanse (men should do this with their doctor at 40-50; depending on how much red meat they eat). Also, with fat being burned and toxins are mostly stored in the fat, I have a difficult time understanding how losing fat isn't detoxing. I meant to say it's painful, not 'pure detox'. Headaches and agitation isn't fun to deal with on a constant basis. But science barely understands the wide range of benefits from fasting. Whether that means empowering your immune system (which is what fasting does, energy to digest is now used to fight illnesses, etc.) A nice read for the uninformed: http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1834 http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1834

cgh 11y ago
Detoxification is a myth: http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/dec/05/detox-myth-health-diet-science-ignorance http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/dec/05/detox-my... There is no science behind it. There is also no science behind extended fasting, giving your body a "break" from digesting and so forth. By all means fast if you feel like it and you believe there is some health benefit - you are harming no one, after all - but please don't try to justify it with medical science.
- CuriouslyC 11y ago
  Actually, not eating for an extended period does have one very significant effect. It radically changes the makeup of your microbiome. I suspect that people who experience health benefits from "detoxes" typically suffer from dysbiosis, and by restricting food supply they essentially hit the "reset" button on their gut bacterial populations.
  - kbutler 11y ago
    ...and then the bacteria reverts to previous within a few days of returning to the previous diet. Gut bacteria adapts really rapidly to whatever you're eating, whether you do a "reset" in between or not.
    - CuriouslyC 11y ago
      Well, probably, but that is not absolutely certain. Sometimes, after a forest fire, the types of trees that end up dominating are different from the trees that dominated before the fire.
- abrookewood 11y ago
  Agreed, but certain harmful/negative things ARE stored in your fat cells (THC from marijuana is one such example) and these do get released during extended fasts as your body burns fat. I don't think this is really in doubt.
- heimatau 11y ago
  I find it strange that you picked a newspaper article with interviews and I posted an academic article filled with scientific citations. Maybe your ingrained belief feels validated with a newspaper article but I'd hope you'd have some scientific rigor and look at actual studies.
__z 11y ago
Which specific "toxins" are in your fat? If your colon isn't working properly you are very sick and you need a doctor ASAP not a fast. The fact fasting (perhaps) has benefits has absolutely nothing to do with "toxins."
- tjradcliffe 11y ago
  And what are the LD50's of those "toxins"? This is my first question to people who go on about "toxins" and "detox" and "cleansing". I don't want an exact number, just a ballpark. Is it micrograms, milligrams or grams per kg body mass? Surely these people who know so very much about "toxins" must know the one fact that distinguishes the things we informally call toxic from the ones we don't. It would be the hieght of intellectual dishonesty to claim something was "toxic" without having any knowledge of the LD50.
  - eru 11y ago
    In a very loose sense of the word you could call sugar a toxin. But it has a ridiculous LD50. (I agree with you mostly, just don't think your argument is holding water.)
    - 16bytes 11y ago
      I think the argument holds. Sugar has a huge and quantifiable LD50. So does, well, water. This tells us that they are pretty much non-toxic at lose doses. If the LD50 of the "toxins" is similar to water, how can one claim that "de-toxing" will have any benefit? In other words, how can you call it "detoxing" if none of the things are toxic?
      - eru 11y ago
        > This tells us that they are pretty much non-toxic at lose doses. Just because sugar doesn't kill you fast (in an LD50 way), doesn't mean it's not bad for you. You are indeed right that those `toxins' people `detox' for are pretty nebulous.
  - 11y ago

cgh 11y ago

Detoxification is a myth: http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/dec/05/detox-myth-health-diet-science-ignorance http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/dec/05/detox-my... There is no science behind it. There is also no science behind extended fasting, giving your body a "break" from digesting and so forth. By all means fast if you feel like it and you believe there is some health benefit - you are harming no one, after all - but please don't try to justify it with medical science.

CuriouslyC 11y ago
Actually, not eating for an extended period does have one very significant effect. It radically changes the makeup of your microbiome. I suspect that people who experience health benefits from "detoxes" typically suffer from dysbiosis, and by restricting food supply they essentially hit the "reset" button on their gut bacterial populations.
- kbutler 11y ago
  ...and then the bacteria reverts to previous within a few days of returning to the previous diet. Gut bacteria adapts really rapidly to whatever you're eating, whether you do a "reset" in between or not.
  - CuriouslyC 11y ago
    Well, probably, but that is not absolutely certain. Sometimes, after a forest fire, the types of trees that end up dominating are different from the trees that dominated before the fire.
abrookewood 11y ago
Agreed, but certain harmful/negative things ARE stored in your fat cells (THC from marijuana is one such example) and these do get released during extended fasts as your body burns fat. I don't think this is really in doubt.
heimatau 11y ago
I find it strange that you picked a newspaper article with interviews and I posted an academic article filled with scientific citations. Maybe your ingrained belief feels validated with a newspaper article but I'd hope you'd have some scientific rigor and look at actual studies.

__z 11y ago

Which specific "toxins" are in your fat? If your colon isn't working properly you are very sick and you need a doctor ASAP not a fast. The fact fasting (perhaps) has benefits has absolutely nothing to do with "toxins."

tjradcliffe 11y ago
And what are the LD50's of those "toxins"? This is my first question to people who go on about "toxins" and "detox" and "cleansing". I don't want an exact number, just a ballpark. Is it micrograms, milligrams or grams per kg body mass? Surely these people who know so very much about "toxins" must know the one fact that distinguishes the things we informally call toxic from the ones we don't. It would be the hieght of intellectual dishonesty to claim something was "toxic" without having any knowledge of the LD50.
- eru 11y ago
  In a very loose sense of the word you could call sugar a toxin. But it has a ridiculous LD50. (I agree with you mostly, just don't think your argument is holding water.)
  - 16bytes 11y ago
    I think the argument holds. Sugar has a huge and quantifiable LD50. So does, well, water. This tells us that they are pretty much non-toxic at lose doses. If the LD50 of the "toxins" is similar to water, how can one claim that "de-toxing" will have any benefit? In other words, how can you call it "detoxing" if none of the things are toxic?
    - eru 11y ago
      > This tells us that they are pretty much non-toxic at lose doses. Just because sugar doesn't kill you fast (in an LD50 way), doesn't mean it's not bad for you. You are indeed right that those `toxins' people `detox' for are pretty nebulous.
- 11y ago