Toxins
Replies
-
as I've had converstations with some of the posters in here who are right, add me to the list of like minded people who can read and understand science...
I called "cholera" on page 1 or 2 or something. Am I still right? Have toxins changes since then?
Is water still the best and most natural way to rid the body of toxins?
I need to know.0 -
Ah singled out! How nice! As if I could care in the slightlest what you think. lol
Where to next, boss?0 -
People that are still mobile and active in their 70's and beyond is pretty impressive.
and I'd argue that MORE people would be mobile and active in their 70s if they ate better foods, and didn't limit themselves to the things that "science" has "proven"anecdotes are anecdotes. if mine don't prove arguments, yours don't either.
People are living longer today than they were in the past. Fact.
Given that one charactistic of health is longevity, it follows that people are healthier today than they were in the past (through medicine advances or whatever).
MORE people would be mobile and active in their 70s if they ate better foods. Theory.
Your theory has yet to be proven, the person backing the 100+ year old person doesn't have that requirement.0 -
I believe it's hard to find absolute truth in science.
That is correct. The way science helps us is by using meta-analysis to evaluate large bodies of evidence, we can find the likelihood that something is true. It is really about probabilities. If most evidence is pointing in the same direction, then odds are that is the right answer. If it is 50/50, then we don't really know yet. As new evidence is found, we add that to the pot and see where it stacks up. It is about where you would place your bets. That is why expert opinion and meta-analysis is most important in examining evidence.0 -
Sorry for the confusion, but by lacky I meant the bumbling side kick to sara/side steel/acg. Since... well that's what lacky typically means.
lacky != head lacky.0 -
Ah singled out! How nice! As if I could care in the slightlest what you think. lol
Where to next, boss?
Sorry for the confusion, but by lacky I meant the bumbling side kick to sara/side steel/acg. Since... well that's what lacky typically means.
I assumed by "head lacky", you were putting him in a position of authority over the rest of us regular lackies...who I will go ahead and preemptively define as anyone who arrives at a conclusion consistent with any of the people on your special list. (That way, you won't be as likely to contort a definition, selective edit, or some kind of textual tap dance around another poor word choice.)
And since I agree with them on this topic, I am a "lacky"...and since mmapags is the "head lacky", I stand by my original post:
"Where to next, boss?"
(See, it was funny...the first time...but now that I've explained it, well...yeah, it's still funny.)0 -
Goes both ways sweetheart.
You keep flattering me with these nice names but, as I've told you before, I'm not really attracted to you. Sorry0 -
I shouldn't have read this thread. The amount of misinformation is sad.
Re: microorganisms in the blood
Bacteria in the blood is called bacteremia. The blood is a STERILE environment. There should be no bacteria in the blood. Bacteremia is one of the causes of septic shock (bacteremia --> septicemia --> septic shock). There should also be no candida in the blood. Candida is normally a noninvasive microorganism. Most infections are superficial (vaginal yeast infection, diaper rash, etc). If it invades that means you are immunocompromised (AIDS, transplant patients, etc) and weren't healthy in the first place. Again, candidemia is extremely rare without preexisting risk factors (like a really bad immune system).
Also the blood shouldn't be mildly acidic or mildly basic. The accepted pH range is between 7.35-7.45. Anything more or less than that is cause for concern.
If you are healthy and your organs are functioning correctly. There is no reason for a detox. That's what your liver is for. If you need to detox, you're not healthy.
And that list of toxins? Really? If people are ingesting some of those in large enough amounts, the poison control center should be contacted. Sodium laureth sulfate is a detergent, found in shampoos, dish soap, toothpaste (which you shouldn't be swallowing anyway) etc.
Arsenic is a toxin. So is shigela toxin. And cholera toxin. Oh and so is the toxin from C. botulinum.
Our bodies are smarter than we could ever hope to be. Why don't we let it do what it's supposed to do? It doesn't need our help.
Shhhhh, quit saying smart things.0 -
I believe it's hard to find absolute truth in science.
That is correct. The way science helps us is by using meta-analysis to evaluate large bodies of evidence, we can find the likelihood that something is true. It is really about probabilities. If most evidence is pointing in the same direction, then odds are that is the right answer. If it is 50/50, then we don't really know yet. As new evidence is found, we add that to the pot and see where it stacks up. It is about where you would place your bets. That is why expert opinion and meta-analysis is most important in examining evidence.
Ah professorRat, the reasoned voice of intelligence. A rare commodity around here! Evidence vs. just making stuff up.0 -
Can you please provide us a pic of a blood sample, google one.
not sure why you want a picture of blood, but here you go:
0 -
Ah singled out! How nice! As if I could care in the slightlest what you think. lol
Where to next, boss?
Sorry for the confusion, but by lacky I meant the bumbling side kick to sara/side steel/acg. Since... well that's what lacky typically means.
I assumed by "head lacky", you were putting him in a position of authority over the rest of us regular lackies...who I will go ahead and preemptively define as anyone who arrives at a conclusion consistent with any of the people on your special list. (That way, you won't be as likely to contort a definition, selective edit, or some kind of textual tap dance around another poor word choice.)
And since I agree with them on this topic, I am a "lacky"...and since mmapags is the "head lacky", I stand by my original post:
"Where to next, boss?"
(See, it was funny...the first time...but now that I've explained it, well...yeah, it's still funny.)
Go ahead and look up the definition of lucky and get back to me.
Lucky:
1. Having good luck
2. Happening by chance
3. Producing or resulting in good by chance
4. Seeming to bring good luck
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lucky
Not sure why you needed that, but there you go.0 -
Good ole autocorrect.
The definition of lackey is servant
The definition of head, in the context you used, is chief or principal, as in 'head waiter'
Please explain why the regular lackeys shouldn't be calling the head lackey 'boss"?0 -
Ah singled out! How nice! As if I could care in the slightlest what you think. lol
Where to next, boss?
Sorry for the confusion, but by lacky I meant the bumbling side kick to sara/side steel/acg. Since... well that's what lacky typically means.
I assumed by "head lacky", you were putting him in a position of authority over the rest of us regular lackies...who I will go ahead and preemptively define as anyone who arrives at a conclusion consistent with any of the people on your special list. (That way, you won't be as likely to contort a definition, selective edit, or some kind of textual tap dance around another poor word choice.)
And since I agree with them on this topic, I am a "lacky"...and since mmapags is the "head lacky", I stand by my original post:
"Where to next, boss?"
(See, it was funny...the first time...but now that I've explained it, well...yeah, it's still funny.)
Go ahead and look up the definition of lucky and get back to me.
Lucky:
1. Having good luck
2. Happening by chance
3. Producing or resulting in good by chance
4. Seeming to bring good luck
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lucky
Not sure why you needed that, but there you go.
I think lucky is what the Coach is hoping to get with me by calling me sweetheart but IT AIN'T HAPPENING! :noway:0 -
Just you wait, I'm very persistent.Ah singled out! How nice! As if I could care in the slightlest what you think. lol
Where to next, boss?
Sorry for the confusion, but by lacky I meant the bumbling side kick to sara/side steel/acg. Since... well that's what lacky typically means.
I assumed by "head lacky", you were putting him in a position of authority over the rest of us regular lackies...who I will go ahead and preemptively define as anyone who arrives at a conclusion consistent with any of the people on your special list. (That way, you won't be as likely to contort a definition, selective edit, or some kind of textual tap dance around another poor word choice.)
And since I agree with them on this topic, I am a "lacky"...and since mmapags is the "head lacky", I stand by my original post:
"Where to next, boss?"
(See, it was funny...the first time...but now that I've explained it, well...yeah, it's still funny.)
Go ahead and look up the definition of lucky and get back to me.
Lucky:
1. Having good luck
2. Happening by chance
3. Producing or resulting in good by chance
4. Seeming to bring good luck
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lucky
Not sure why you needed that, but there you go.
I think lucky is what the Coach is hoping to get with me by calling me sweetheart but IT AIN'T HAPPENING! :noway:
0 -
It's the "monetary toxins" that the companies are trying to rid you of.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Best explanation ever.
0 -
So (please note I'm not the kind of person that detoxes. I have a cousin who believes in them) the gist of it is every day your body absorbs (thru your skin, lungs, intestines, etc) chemicals that aren't good for the body. Let's say things like arsenic from playing on old wooden jungle gyms, pesticides on unwashed fruit, ammonia from cleaning the cat litter, aspartame from diet coke, etc.
Now, healthy bodies know how to handle this stuff. Our liver and immune system isolate toxins like these and neutralize them and then excrete the waste from that process. Thru our breath, urine, poo, skin, etc.
However, we aren't healthy. We aren't efficient at this process, due to all the fast food and meat and other things that are "hard" for our bodies to digest (again, this isn't me talking, just keep that in mind). So since our liver is busy with all the primary duties of digesting food, our bodies stores the "toxins" in fat cells and other places around the body, saying "we'll get back to neutralizing and eliminating that toxin later when I'm not so busy." But we never give our livers a rest. So the toxin store up in our bodies. In our lymph nodes, hell, I don't know where. Somewhere.
When you "detox" you are giving your liver and digestive tract a "break" from the hard task of digesting crappy food. So since the liver now finds itself an organ of leisure, it tells the body to bring all those stored toxins to it, so it can finally deal with the backlog.
So all that smelly poo, massive amounts of pee, itchy skin, runny nose or any of the other "detox" side effects are proof that your liver is indeed finally processing all that old, built up toxins, and your body is expelling it.
I have never seen it explained like that! That makes it sound a lot less....dumb.
It makes more sense to me now why people do them.. 0 -
Hey if you wanna willingly put yourself at the bottom of the totem pole be my guest!
My point
>
Your head
>
Developing something that works for you, or clients working with you directly, and not waiting for peer-reviewed studies to definitively prove or disprove your theory is one thing. Claiming you're right for the general populace on the internet is quite another.So should we not make decisions until science proves it's okay? That's one of my biggest points. Do we have to wait for science?
One of the biggest things I talk about is learning from experience.0 -
THE ONE WHO YELLS THE LOUDEST WINS...
I WIN!!!!0 -
THE ONE WHO YELLS THE LOUDEST WINS...
I WIN!!!!
NOPE!! I WIN BECAUSE I BOLDED MY CAPITOL LETTERS AND THEREFORE PROVE THAT I AM YELLING THE LOUDEST!!!0 -
I believe it's hard to find absolute truth in science.
That is correct. The way science helps us is by using meta-analysis to evaluate large bodies of evidence, we can find the likelihood that something is true. It is really about probabilities. If most evidence is pointing in the same direction, then odds are that is the right answer. If it is 50/50, then we don't really know yet. As new evidence is found, we add that to the pot and see where it stacks up. It is about where you would place your bets. That is why expert opinion and meta-analysis is most important in examining evidence.
So should we not make decisions until science proves it's okay? That's one of my biggest points. Do we have to wait for science?
One of the biggest things I talk about is learning from experience.
Not sure how you got the conclusion that she's saying we should not make decisions until science proves it's ok. She's saying go with the best available evidence based on expert opinion and meta-analysis not n=1 anecdotal experience, which is what you seem to always be suggesting. ie. because you think it might have worked for you, it works! And you'll argue about it to the death.
So now am I a lacky of professorRat?? Does my supporting her postion make the list of people for whom I am a lacky grow? Just checking because we added eachother as friends yesterday ergo.........0 -
I believe it's hard to find absolute truth in science.
That is correct. The way science helps us is by using meta-analysis to evaluate large bodies of evidence, we can find the likelihood that something is true. It is really about probabilities. If most evidence is pointing in the same direction, then odds are that is the right answer. If it is 50/50, then we don't really know yet. As new evidence is found, we add that to the pot and see where it stacks up. It is about where you would place your bets. That is why expert opinion and meta-analysis is most important in examining evidence.
So should we not make decisions until science proves it's okay? That's one of my biggest points. Do we have to wait for science?
One of the biggest things I talk about is learning from experience.
Not exactly. But we should not go around overstating our case when the jury is still out. This happens often in many areas of science. Think of it as placing a bet with lots of your own hard earned money. If you would not wager a large sum that something is true, then you should really temper how loudly you trumpet it as being true.
To have a high degree of confidence that something is true (that can be investigated via scientific method)? Well, yes, we have to wait. Some things we have lots of evidence regarding, some things we don't. It sucks that way. I also think sometimes we have a fair amount of evidence pointing in one direction, but people choose to believe an alternative view despite a lack of evidence supporting it. I am not sure why this happens, but it happens frequently.
Also, learning from experience can be problematic because it does not allow us to control for other variables. For example, often cutting carbs also results in cutting calories. People sometimes think the low carb diet is what allowed them to lose weight. They do not try to reliably and consistently eat the same calories with the lower carb profile and see what happens. That is what good science allows us to do (and with larger numbers of people involved in the "experiment"). Human brains look for patterns and will see them even in a known random series. Our brains will betray us that way. So, we need science to help us sort things out.0 -
Midi-chlorians. They don't want any chance of rogue, untrained Jedi.0
-
I'm against toxins, particularly heavy metals are bad.0
-
I'm against toxins, particularly heavy metals are bad.
I'm a big fan of the heavy metals.
0 -
THE ONE WHO YELLS THE LOUDEST WINS...
I WIN!!!!
NOPE!! I WIN BECAUSE I BOLDED MY CAPITOL LETTERS AND THEREFORE PROVE THAT I AM YELLING THE LOUDEST!!!
WE NEED A BLINK TAG!0 -
I believe it's hard to find absolute truth in science.
That is correct. The way science helps us is by using meta-analysis to evaluate large bodies of evidence, we can find the likelihood that something is true. It is really about probabilities. If most evidence is pointing in the same direction, then odds are that is the right answer. If it is 50/50, then we don't really know yet. As new evidence is found, we add that to the pot and see where it stacks up. It is about where you would place your bets. That is why expert opinion and meta-analysis is most important in examining evidence.
So should we not make decisions until science proves it's okay? That's one of my biggest points. Do we have to wait for science?
One of the biggest things I talk about is learning from experience.
Not exactly. But we should not go around overstating our case when the jury is still out. This happens often in many areas of science. Think of it as placing a bet with lots of your own hard earned money. If you would not wager a large sum that something is true, then you should really temper how loudly you trumpet it as being true.
To have a high degree of confidence that something is true (that can be investigated via scientific method)? Well, yes, we have to wait. Some things we have lots of evidence regarding, some things we don't. It sucks that way. I also think sometimes we have a fair amount of evidence pointing in one direction, but people choose to believe an alternative view despite a lack of evidence supporting it. I am not sure why this happens, but it happens frequently.
Also, learning from experience can be problematic because it does not allow us to control for other variables. For example, often cutting carbs also results in cutting calories. People sometimes think the low carb diet is what allowed them to lose weight. They do not try to reliably and consistently eat the same calories with the lower carb profile and see what happens. That is what good science allows us to do (and with larger numbers of people involved in the "experiment"). Human brains look for patterns and will see them even in a known random series. Our brains will betray us that way. So, we need science to help us sort things out.
This happens to a lot of people with autoimmune diseases too. They cut out something, or start taking a pill, and their symptoms get better. So they think it was because of what they did (common sense). But autoimmune disorders come and go on their own, so it's very hard to figure out when you've really helped/hurt yourself, and when it was just a coincidence or a third variable.0 -
THE ONE WHO YELLS THE LOUDEST WINS...
I WIN!!!!
NOPE!! I WIN BECAUSE I BOLDED MY CAPITOL LETTERS AND THEREFORE PROVE THAT I AM YELLING THE LOUDEST!!!
WE NEED A BLINK TAG!
0 -
I believe it's hard to find absolute truth in science.
That is correct. The way science helps us is by using meta-analysis to evaluate large bodies of evidence, we can find the likelihood that something is true. It is really about probabilities. If most evidence is pointing in the same direction, then odds are that is the right answer. If it is 50/50, then we don't really know yet. As new evidence is found, we add that to the pot and see where it stacks up. It is about where you would place your bets. That is why expert opinion and meta-analysis is most important in examining evidence.
So should we not make decisions until science proves it's okay? That's one of my biggest points. Do we have to wait for science?
One of the biggest things I talk about is learning from experience.
Not exactly. But we should not go around overstating our case when the jury is still out. This happens often in many areas of science. Think of it as placing a bet with lots of your own hard earned money. If you would not wager a large sum that something is true, then you should really temper how loudly you trumpet it as being true.
To have a high degree of confidence that something is true (that can be investigated via scientific method)? Well, yes, we have to wait. Some things we have lots of evidence regarding, some things we don't. It sucks that way. I also think sometimes we have a fair amount of evidence pointing in one direction, but people choose to believe an alternative view despite a lack of evidence supporting it. I am not sure why this happens, but it happens frequently.
Also, learning from experience can be problematic because it does not allow us to control for other variables. For example, often cutting carbs also results in cutting calories. People sometimes think the low carb diet is what allowed them to lose weight. They do not try to reliably and consistently eat the same calories with the lower carb profile and see what happens. That is what good science allows us to do (and with larger numbers of people involved in the "experiment"). Human brains look for patterns and will see them even in a known random series. Our brains will betray us that way. So, we need science to help us sort things out.
This happens to a lot of people with autoimmune diseases too. They cut out something, or start taking a pill, and their symptoms get better. So they think it was because of what they did (common sense). But autoimmune disorders come and go on their own, so it's very hard to figure out when you've really helped/hurt yourself, and when it was just a coincidence or a third variable.
^very true and another good example. Thanks!
Thankfully, meta-analysis can lead us to the most likely effective treatments for such things. They don't work on everyone, but they do work on the majority. So, it is your best bet. Probability is really all we get out of the deal.0 -
I believe it's hard to find absolute truth in science.
That is correct. The way science helps us is by using meta-analysis to evaluate large bodies of evidence, we can find the likelihood that something is true. It is really about probabilities. If most evidence is pointing in the same direction, then odds are that is the right answer. If it is 50/50, then we don't really know yet. As new evidence is found, we add that to the pot and see where it stacks up. It is about where you would place your bets. That is why expert opinion and meta-analysis is most important in examining evidence.
So should we not make decisions until science proves it's okay? That's one of my biggest points. Do we have to wait for science?
One of the biggest things I talk about is learning from experience.
Not exactly. But we should not go around overstating our case when the jury is still out. This happens often in many areas of science. Think of it as placing a bet with lots of your own hard earned money. If you would not wager a large sum that something is true, then you should really temper how loudly you trumpet it as being true.
To have a high degree of confidence that something is true (that can be investigated via scientific method)? Well, yes, we have to wait. Some things we have lots of evidence regarding, some things we don't. It sucks that way. I also think sometimes we have a fair amount of evidence pointing in one direction, but people choose to believe an alternative view despite a lack of evidence supporting it. I am not sure why this happens, but it happens frequently.
Also, learning from experience can be problematic because it does not allow us to control for other variables. For example, often cutting carbs also results in cutting calories. People sometimes think the low carb diet is what allowed them to lose weight. They do not try to reliably and consistently eat the same calories with the lower carb profile and see what happens. That is what good science allows us to do (and with larger numbers of people involved in the "experiment"). Human brains look for patterns and will see them even in a known random series. Our brains will betray us that way. So, we need science to help us sort things out.
This happens to a lot of people with autoimmune diseases too. They cut out something, or start taking a pill, and their symptoms get better. So they think it was because of what they did (common sense). But autoimmune disorders come and go on their own, so it's very hard to figure out when you've really helped/hurt yourself, and when it was just a coincidence or a third variable.
^very true and another good example. Thanks!
Thankfully, meta-analysis can lead us to the most likely effective treatments for such things. They don't work on everyone, but they do work on the majority. So, it is your best bet. Probability is really all we get out of the deal.
It really is refreshing and delicious :drinker:0 -
THE ONE WHO YELLS THE LOUDEST WINS...
I WIN!!!!
NOPE!! I WIN BECAUSE I BOLDED MY CAPITOL LETTERS AND THEREFORE PROVE THAT I AM YELLING THE LOUDEST!!!
WE NEED A BLINK TAG!
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions