Rude and Unsupportive Posts.

rowanwood

Do what works for YOU, period! No debate needed.

Then don't ask for opinions, because it negates this. Just a tip.

SpeSHul_SnoflEHk

People prefer higher impact fiction to reality in many areas of life - for example, we have way more insurance salesmen around than action men, but way more movies about action men than insurance salesmen - and I guess nutrition is one of those areas for some people.

They can't get excited about slowing changing their nutrition and fitness habits to change themselves, but detoxing and losing 15lbs in a week sounds fantastic!

This is the truth. Most people will do anything to avoid hard work. When I am asked "how I did it" to lose almost 90 pounds, they always look disappointed when I answer, "Eat right, and exercise." They seem to all be looking for the magic bullet. that will save their hide.

As for the OP, I completely concur with his sentiments. Especially those who will forgo necessary treatments because of all the misinformation they receive. I have seen too much of it in my life. It's not just isolated to cleanses and detoxes either. I live near Palmer College of Chiropractic, and have friends who go there. Some of them are right off the deep end in their hatred of western medicine. They will argue and claim that all illnesses can be fixed through diet, and spinal manipulation (adjustments). I have known too many people that have had their quality of life cut short, and sometimes their quantity of life as well, because they didn't want to get put on antibiotics for necrotizing fasciitis, or didn't treat thier diabetes with insulin, and ended up losing a limb. It's sad.

That being said, I don't beleve there is no place for alternative medicine. One of my duties in my work is to head up the adoption of integrative medicine, and incorporate plans of care that combine traditional western medicine with traditional alternative medicine techniques as masssage therapy, chiropractic care, accupuncture/accupressure, etc. There are some documented benefits of these alternative medicine techniques, and they should not be dismissed outright.

Also, there is a lot of work being done in the field of functional medicine. In this model, the body is viewed as an ecosystem. Everything that we take into or do to our bodies affects that ecosystem, for good or for bad. This area of medicine looks at food as a preventative technique to keep our body's ecosystem in balance, and prevent/minimize illness from occurring in the first place. It's still a fairly new field, but there is a growing following.

Sabine_Stroehm

Do what works for YOU, period! No debate needed.

Then don't ask for opinions, because it negates this. Just a tip.

So choosing a path, and asking for support on that path is always bad? Interesting.

_HeartsOnFire_

this is a serious thread BTW.

The boy who cried wolf.

^^This. This is trolling.

No.

It's called a difference of opinion.

No.

It's called insinuation. Insinuation that the OP is lying (re: moral of the story "The Boy Who Cried Wolf"). Insinuating that a person is lying is considered offensive in many cultures, including that of OP. So, again, I'll say: trolling. Enjoy your project. :flowerforyou:

High five.

That one is trolling just to troll. Have fun with that.

_TastySnoBalls_

Survival of the fittest I say ... Let them juice/cleanse

i'm sympathetic to that mindset.

this thread isn't really about those practices anyway. i simply used them to illustrate a point. some people who have posted missed that point completely. *shrugs*

you could replace "cleanse" and "detox" in the OP with any of a dozen other quack diet fads and the OP would still work for illustrating my point.

I got the intent if your post, but damn there are a lot of morons on this site! You knew this thread would go downhill though I'm sure

QuietBloom

If you mean it and you're not being sarcastic, I'll support you.

agree.

I have friends in real life that chose the juicing route and I just ignore it when they bring it up.

I had a friend in real life who had breast cancer and a good prognosis, who decided to treat it "naturally," until it didn't go away and it was too late to treat it.

OMG. That is horrible. :frown:

moment_to_arise

Survival of the fittest I say ... Let them juice/cleanse

this.

QuietBloom

So, I actually agree with you on juicing not working, etc.

But... what you're basically saying is that you're disappointed that people are not being supportive of you not being supportive of someone else's diet choices. Or, put a different way, you're expecting people to fall all over themselves and say "Why yes, d'uh, you are 100% right, what was I thinking?!" When you tell them they're wrong.

Didn't you learn that didn't work that well in like, elementary school? No one likes being told they're wrong. How about you focus on your own weight loss and stop telling people how they should handle it?

Because people come on here ASKING for advice on juicing! It is perfectly appropriate to point out how dangerous and ineffective it is, in that case. :ohwell:

QuietBloom

this is a serious thread BTW.

The boy who cried wolf.

^^This. This is trolling.

No.

It's called a difference of opinion.

You never actually stated an opinion. You just keep saying troll. I guess that makes you The Boy Who Called Troll.

My opinion was it was trolling. I think I made that plain.

Others disagree.

You win the internet! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

BrainyBurro

If you mean it and you're not being sarcastic, I'll support you.

agree.

I have friends in real life that chose the juicing route and I just ignore it when they bring it up.

I had a friend in real life who had breast cancer and a good prognosis, who decided to treat it "naturally," until it didn't go away and it was too late to treat it.

OMG. That is horrible. :frown:

Steve Jobs died for the same reason. he had a good prognosis because his cancer was caught very early, but he decided to try alternative cures for a few years before he came to his senses. by that time, it was too late.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2011/10/24/steve-jobs-cancer-treatment-regrets/

MyM0wM0w

Blah..blah.. and BLAH!

TheRealParisLove

Ask an atheist how that feels, I bet they can relate.

Achrya

I'm of the mindset that some people are desperate and in that desperation they subscribe to nonesense ideas. Some times the ideas just waste time, some times they waste money, and sometimes they are harmful to that person's health.

If you know an idea is nonsense, and have evidence/science to back up that view, but say nothing when an OP is all "I'm starting the hot sauce and honey cleanse, anyone else done this/can has support?" then you may be an awful person. I will never, ever, believe it is better to just let people do stupid things then speak up. I will happily be a rude, mean, trolling bully any day of the week over being the person who watches people rush headlong into a brick wall.

Everyone is different. There are many ways to achieve the various goals people have around here. But that doesn't mean some of those ways aren't stupid.

PetulantOne

QuietBloom

Honestly, it sounds like you were probably being rude and unsupportive to those who were pursuing juice cleanses or detoxes. You can say that they're not grounded in science, but science differs from country to country. When I lived in Poland, I discovered that detoxing is very popular there. There was a lot of science to support it. And yet in the States there is heaps of science saying that we shouldn't detox? Who's right?

*shrugs*

Moral of this post? Do what feels right to you. If a 3 day cleanse is something you think will help, do it. (I don't think I'd recommend anything longer, but it's been done).

You need to respect other people's decisions and, in turn, they will respect your point of view. But if you come at them as an attack - which this entire thread feels very aggressive - then you're going to be attacked in turn.

It is not possible for peer reviewed. published scientific information to be available in Poland, yet not in the US. Medline is an international database for scientific literature. You may be confusing articles about personal opinions with actual scientific published research.

rml_16

Steve Jobs died for the same reason. he had a good prognosis because his cancer was caught very early, but he decided to try alternative cures for a few years before he came to his senses. by that time, it was too late.

I thought he tried both?

Either way, pancreatic cancer has something like a 2% survival rate after five years. I knew someone who had it, caught VERY early and was declared cured. It came back after a year and killed him within weeks. And he was very aggressive with his treatment.

Jobs probably would have died no matter what.

But breast cancer I think now has a 95% survival rate.

Sabine_Stroehm

I'm of the mindset that some people are desperate and in that desperation they subscribe to nonesense ideas. Some times the ideas just waste time, some times they waste money, and sometimes they are harmful to that person's health.

If you know an idea is nonsense, and have evidence/science to back up that view, but say nothing when an OP is all "I'm starting the hot sauce and honey cleanse, anyone else done this/can has support?" then you may be an awful person. I will never, ever, believe it is better to just let people do stupid things then speak up. I will happily be a rude, mean, trolling bully any day of the week over being the person who watches people rush headlong into a brick wall.

Everyone is different. There are many ways to achieve the various goals people have around here. But that doesn't mean some of those ways aren't stupid.

STraight up! I totally agree.
Now, when someone's doing something safe, but not of the "iffym" mantra why do folks STILL insist on telling them it's unnecessary and wrong(or mocking them)? That's the only time I object.

Sabine_Stroehm

Steve Jobs died for the same reason. he had a good prognosis because his cancer was caught very early, but he decided to try alternative cures for a few years before he came to his senses. by that time, it was too late.

I thought he tried both?

Either way, pancreatic cancer has something like a 2% survival rate after five years. I knew someone who had it, caught VERY early and was declared cured. It came back after a year and killed him within weeks. And he was very aggressive with his treatment.

Jobs probably would have died no matter what.

But breast cancer I think now has a 95% survival rate.

What I understood was that he had a very rare, slow growing but aggressive form of pancreatic cancer with a minimal survival rate and he tried something new. I'm not sure I wouldn't have done what he did.

http://www.webmd.com/cancer/pancreatic-cancer/news/20110825/faq-steve-jobs-pancreatic-cancer

rml_16

Steve Jobs died for the same reason. he had a good prognosis because his cancer was caught very early, but he decided to try alternative cures for a few years before he came to his senses. by that time, it was too late.

I thought he tried both?

Either way, pancreatic cancer has something like a 2% survival rate after five years. I knew someone who had it, caught VERY early and was declared cured. It came back after a year and killed him within weeks. And he was very aggressive with his treatment.

Jobs probably would have died no matter what.

But breast cancer I think now has a 95% survival rate.

What I understood was that he had a very aggressive form of pancreatic cancer with a minimal survival rate and he tried something new. I'm not sure I wouldn't have done what he did.

My grandmother, who was a doctor, had colon cancer that spread to her liver. She put herself into every new study and treatment that would have her and probably prolonged her life doing so.

I don't see anything wrong with trying new treatments along with old. It's the people who think giving up sugar and eating vegetables is going to cure them that are doomed.

SpeSHul_SnoflEHk

You can say that they're not grounded in science, but science differs from country to country.

:huh:

It really does. Or rather, I should say that the viewpoint of scientists differ from country to country? Either way, there's heaps of contradictory evidence in ... almost everything.

That is why you read all the material given and then make logical choices based on your final evaluations of the studies.

Totally agree! The only issue is that what is logical for one person won't be logical for another. The family I lived with in Poland did this cleanse where they stuck something up their butt and literally flushed out their system. I was slightly horrified, haha. She had all of these articles about how it was healthy, but I couldn't jump on the bandwagon. In a way, all of science will always have a bit of subjectivity to it. She also did a cleanse where you don't eat for 5 days and then you only eat soup for the next 5 days and this was a very popular detox method - even my doctor there recommended it, haha.

Define articles. Are we talking peer reviewed journals, or some hack reporter's interpretation of the science?

Was it only a qualitative study or was it quantitative? If it was quantitiative, there are still different levels of evidence that are fairly universally accepted as toa hierarchy of "good science" vs. "bad science". I have seen enough "science" completed by people who have no idea how to go about designing and conducting a study that the information rendered is useless. I have seen enough "science" completed by someone who had such a stake in the thing being evaluated, that their biases show up in their methodology. Science education needs to be ramped up so that people are able to read and critique and critically think about the studies they are reading about.