Toxins

WinnerVictorious

So basically, if someone disagrees with you, it means they are automatically following someone else and not thinking for themselves?

"someone" no, a "group" yes.

So, if lets say, the American Cancer Society (using this as an example and not actually pertinent to toxins or cleanses) disagrees with you then they are a hater and a clique?

Or is it if a lot of people disagree with you? Perhaps you should look to the underlying reasons why they are disagreeing rather than assuming it is purely because they are part of a clique? Just throwing that bit of logic out there for you!

If you're in a restaurant you see some cops walk in, then 5mins later you see some other cops walk in. How do you know they're in the same group? Their clothes for one, and another is the behavior.

The behavior of this "clique" give it away. It's so obvious.

Dude, you are delusional.

So I am delusional about that we never communicated in the past. I seen you around for a very long time. Suddenly me and your mfp buddies get in to a debate you jump right in and start to be insulting?

maybe, they have you under 24 hour continuous surveillance on these forums. whenever you post, they hold an emergency meeting to determine a course of action. today that course of action was to collect their resources, decide on a plan of attack, and then attack en masse.

or,

maybe, they individually saw on their newsfeeds that one or more of their friends were commenting on a thread by the name of "Toxins" and seeing as how it was a slow Sunday afternoon, decided to check out what was being discussed because the thread title promised an interesting discussion.

i'll leave it to you to determine which is the more likely explanation.

ninerbuff

DAMN left out again........................just like in highschool.:laugh:

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

EvgeniZyntx

Damn, I too was left out.

Pu, full disclosure. I'm friends with all/or most of these people and I appreciate their input and information. And should I disagree with them, have reserves or find something missing I do and have raised it. Here is my issue - I think that, fairly, you are correct that you are being taken to task and jabbed at.

Well, this might simply be because you do not present solid and consistent arguments and your first response tends to attempt to belittle a person you are discussing with. That is why I used the same words and language style that you used. I think you do have some interesting potential insights but then I see you often arguing for the sake of it - not sure if you'd attempt to argue against the wetness of water just because everyone agrees on it. I say that without disrespect. I enjoy the discussions because they are interesting exercises in clarity.

You cast alternative opinion as systemic truth of science and as a method of overturned knowledge. Biology and nutrition given both the functional variability and the large gray areas are ripe for that, but if you continue to posit some absolute truth of that view point you'll find that most these individuals, and people with science background will call you on it. Do I have doubts about my scientific position? I most certainly do - but not with respect to unclear alternate arguments built on weak foundations and proposed as "science". Structure your thinking and posts, your arguments will profit from it. Finally, scientific language is precise, so yes, you'll get called for it if you attempt to build an argument using big words improperly structured.

And honestly - I admire every single individual you listed for very different reasons.

Mellie289

Since I joined MFP last year, I've also been curious about all this talk of toxins. I never really heard much about it before coming here where everyone is trying every diet under the sun, so I have lots of questions. So far, I'm not seeing any really compelling "proof" that there are toxins and cleanses do anything to clear them out of the body, but my mind is open if people will show me the data! I certainly feel better when I eat clean versus having lots of processed junk, but I've always chalked that up to refined sugar and white flour messing with my blood sugar, but maybe it has been the additives as well. I don't feel like there's a need for a cleanse to rid myself of those chemicals though - simply avoiding them, I'm sure my body did a good job on its own from how I felt.

Also these toxins can cause your liver to not shed weight and store them in fat.

Can you explain this? My understanding is that only fat-soluble toxins would be stored in fat. So, how would a cleanse eliminate toxins stored in fat? I imagine the only way to get rid of those toxins is to lose the fat, and fat isn't localized to the liver.

There are exotoxins and mycotoxins that can develop in the bloodstream, there is also candida. A green juice fast helps with this stuff, and straight fasting.

Reminds me of when people say, "You don't need to detox your body, your body does it naturally." Think of a water filter it cleans out our water. So does that mean you're going to put motor oil in it because "it filters automatically?" It's a pretty idiotic statement.

Of course our organs are constantly functioning. If you over load it, it will take more time for it to do it's job. If you stop putting stress on it, it can finish the process completely.

I'm also very confused by all this talk of candida in the blood - surely, that's situations in which people have severely compromised immune systems, like having AIDS, and those people are beyond the help of some diet "cleanse". Well, this is according to the CDC, whom I think is a reputable source based on scientific and medical research. Can you provide a link to other information? I also did a quick google search of exotoxins and came up with too many things that aren't relevant.

From the CDC: Invasive Candidiasis
Invasive candidiasis is a fungal infection that can occur when Candida yeasts enter the bloodstream. Candidemia (a bloodstream infection with Candida), is extremely rare in people without risk factors, but it is the fourth most common bloodstream infection among hospitalized patients in the United States.
http://www.cdc.gov/fungal/candidiasis/invasive/

AllAboutThatTreble

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.

cmeiron

Just because someone's a biologist does not INHERENTLY make them right about every subject - specifically alternative medicine.

If alternative medicine worked, you know what they'd call it? MEDICINE.

_noob_

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...

mmapags

Ah singled out! How nice! As if I could care in the slightlest what you think. lol

Sarauk2sf

Coach, please could you point out where myself, SideSteel or Acg have made any personal attacks in this thread. Thank you...I will be waiting.

Sarauk2sf

Coach, please could you point out where myself, SideSteel or Acg have made any personal attacks in this thread. Thank you...I will be waiting.

Haha but you NAILED the holier than thou snark yet again. 2 out of 3 ain't bad.

That is your interpretation of what I posted.

I was actually referring to these accusations "venom, sarcasm, and insults" for those I mentioned (not just me).

Ironic post is ironic (<--snark)

BeachGingerOnTheRocks

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.

jofjltncb6

Ah singled out! How nice! As if I could care in the slightlest what you think. lol

Where to next, boss?

ArroganceInStep

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.

professorRAT

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.

ArroganceInStep

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.

jofjltncb6

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.)

mmapags

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. Sorry

ldrosophila

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.

mmapags

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.

ACSL3

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: