3 ms·

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. I

by 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.