Toxins
Replies
-
[/quote]You really don't need to be a biologist or a chemist to know that the world we live in today has much more pollutants, chemicals, or dare I say it, toxins, in the air, water, food, cleansers, etc that we breathe, eat, drink, or use, everyday.
Actually, you do. Pollution in the US (and other areas of the developed world) has improved. It still exists and there are still problems, but how much harmful pollution there is (or isn't) can not be determined by "common sense". Historically, it has been much worse than it is today: http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/kits/pollution/02history.html This is exactly why evidence matters, not non-expert opinions based on flawed human observations. I mean no disrespect to you, I am simply illustrating my previously made points regarding science and why it is important.
[/quote]
No disrespect taken at all, I agree that pollution was much worse in most large cities.0 -
I believe that eating right can remove all toxins from your body. The foods that support the liver are the way to go.
http://balancedconcepts.net/liver_phases_detox_paths.pdf
Thanks for the link, I bookmarked it.0 -
[/quote]You really don't need to be a biologist or a chemist to know that the world we live in today has much more pollutants, chemicals, or dare I say it, toxins, in the air, water, food, cleansers, etc that we breathe, eat, drink, or use, everyday.
Actually, you do. Pollution in the US (and other areas of the developed world) has improved. It still exists and there are still problems, but how much harmful pollution there is (or isn't) can not be determined by "common sense". Historically, it has been much worse than it is today: http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/kits/pollution/02history.html This is exactly why evidence matters, not non-expert opinions based on flawed human observations. I mean no disrespect to you, I am simply illustrating my previously made points regarding science and why it is important.
No disrespect taken at all, I agree that pollution was much worse in most large cities.
[/quote]
:flowerforyou:0 -
I would prefer the truth to a happy medium, because a happy medium is intended to satisfy peoples' egos at the expense of an actual understanding of reality. The question still remains, which toxins are removed by what methods? If you are taking in some "toxin" from air pollution or whatever, how does "only eat lemons for a week" have any effect whatsoever on that?
Someone, anyone please name a specific toxin as well as what technique removes it. If not, what is all this hocus pocus supposed to do for anyone? There is nothing beneficial to any human being to just state a random superstition and demand compromise in the form of 'everyone should sorta believe me so I can feel good about myself.'
I agree with you that happy medium does NOT mean just tell someone what they want to hear. What I meant by that is there are two extreme sides in this issue, one side being eat whatever you want, your body will just clean it up for you, and the other extreme where there is a long list of things they cannot eat, or juice fasts where people don't eat for days, or having to regularly perform enemas.
In between these two extremes, is where the majority usually sits. Does our body, and particularly, our liver, do its job cleansing itself of toxins? Yes. Should we still try to eat as healthy as we can, and use healthy foods to cleanse our liver and help it do its job??? Yes.0 -
I would prefer the truth to a happy medium, because a happy medium is intended to satisfy peoples' egos at the expense of an actual understanding of reality. The question still remains, which toxins are removed by what methods? If you are taking in some "toxin" from air pollution or whatever, how does "only eat lemons for a week" have any effect whatsoever on that?
Someone, anyone please name a specific toxin as well as what technique removes it. If not, what is all this hocus pocus supposed to do for anyone? There is nothing beneficial to any human being to just state a random superstition and demand compromise in the form of 'everyone should sorta believe me so I can feel good about myself.'
I agree with you that happy medium does NOT mean just tell someone what they want to hear. What I meant by that is there are two extreme sides in this issue, one side being eat whatever you want, your body will just clean it up for you, and the other extreme where there is a long list of things they cannot eat, or juice fasts where people don't eat for days, or having to regularly perform enemas.
In between these two extremes, is where the majority usually sits. Does our body, and particularly, our liver, do its job cleansing itself of toxins? Yes. Should we still try to eat as healthy as we can, and use healthy foods to cleanse our liver and help it do its job??? Yes.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.
Meta-analysis are often poor science.
Honestly, I am using the term less specifically than I should. I am intending to express that broad analysis of the body of evidence on a topic is very useful. Furthermore, consensus view of this evidence from a community of experts on the issue is also important. (The hope being that a large community has looks at results as well as weighed value of various studies based on perceived quality). Of course, no one approach to examining evidence is perfect, I just think this is likely to yield the best information. You are absolutely correct that meta-analysis is a more specific statistical approach and I should not have used the term here. (sloppiness on my part).
Ok, my fault for taking it literally. After years of having meta analysis studies disallowed from drug applications in Europe (along with conclusions that are not part of the hypothesis design) I sort of twitch at the use of that word. Thank you for your explanation. I agree 100%.
No, you were right to take it literally and I should be punished for using it incorrectly and being so sloppy with language! I promise to work on this.:flowerforyou: I am actually glad you brought it up. Bad habits should be broken!
Back at you :flowerforyou: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.
Meta-analysis are often poor science.
Honestly, I am using the term less specifically than I should. I am intending to express that broad analysis of the body of evidence on a topic is very useful. Furthermore, consensus view of this evidence from a community of experts on the issue is also important. (The hope being that a large community has looks at results as well as weighed value of various studies based on perceived quality). Of course, no one approach to examining evidence is perfect, I just think this is likely to yield the best information. You are absolutely correct that meta-analysis is a more specific statistical approach and I should not have used the term here. (sloppiness on my part).
Ok, my fault for taking it literally. After years of having meta analysis studies disallowed from drug applications in Europe (along with conclusions that are not part of the hypothesis design) I sort of twitch at the use of that word. Thank you for your explanation. I agree 100%.
No, you were right to take it literally and I should be punished for using it incorrectly and being so sloppy with language! I promise to work on this.:flowerforyou: I am actually glad you brought it up. Bad habits should be broken!
Back at you :flowerforyou:
This is what i like best about both of you as my friends. Humility, honesty, the williningness to grow and progress based on facts and an inherently supportive nature. To say nothing of your intelligence!! You are examples to many others here. Glad you are both on my friends list.0 -
*tear of joy* I did not expect to come into the toxin thread and see such a beautiful message
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.
Meta-analysis are often poor science.
Honestly, I am using the term less specifically than I should. I am intending to express that broad analysis of the body of evidence on a topic is very useful. Furthermore, consensus view of this evidence from a community of experts on the issue is also important. (The hope being that a large community has looks at results as well as weighed value of various studies based on perceived quality). Of course, no one approach to examining evidence is perfect, I just think this is likely to yield the best information. You are absolutely correct that meta-analysis is a more specific statistical approach and I should not have used the term here. (sloppiness on my part).
Ok, my fault for taking it literally. After years of having meta analysis studies disallowed from drug applications in Europe (along with conclusions that are not part of the hypothesis design) I sort of twitch at the use of that word. Thank you for your explanation. I agree 100%.
No, you were right to take it literally and I should be punished for using it incorrectly and being so sloppy with language! I promise to work on this.:flowerforyou: I am actually glad you brought it up. Bad habits should be broken!
Back at you :flowerforyou:
This is what i like best about both of you as my friends. Humility, honesty, the williningness to grow and progress based on facts and an inherently supportive nature. To say nothing of your intelligence!! You are examples to many others here. Glad you are both on my friends list.
0 -
evry1 on this site is so mean. ^^^Look at these guys.0
-
awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
Group Hug!!!!!
Wait...where'd everybody go???
0 -
Hey, so how's this thread going, what did I miss?
Any solutions to world peace?
No?
Really?
Carry on then . . .0 -
u guys i jus ingected hi fruktoes corn sirrup in2 me wut do i do0
-
Your liver:
0 -
SWEET PERTATERZ R REELY GUD REMUVIN TOCKZINS.u guys i jus ingected hi fruktoes corn sirrup in2 me wut do i do
WUT DO U LYKE ON YER SWEET PERTATERZ?0 -
SWEET PERTATERZ R REELY GUD REMUVIN TOCKZINS.u guys i jus ingected hi fruktoes corn sirrup in2 me wut do i do
WUT DO U LYKE ON YER SWEET PERTATERZ?
YOU GUISE ADS TOKSINS TWO YUR SWEAT PUHTAITOES?0 -
Should I have my dogs do a cleanse? Cause of the pesticides and bad air and processed dog foods.
I really want to rid them of toxins!
My dog rids himself of toxins -into the air - often. At least, I blame him...0 -
SWEET PERTATERZ R REELY GUD REMUVIN TOCKZINS.u guys i jus ingected hi fruktoes corn sirrup in2 me wut do i do
WUT DO U LYKE ON YER SWEET PERTATERZ?
AY LEIK HI FRUKTOES KORN SIZZURP ON IT OH DAMN WUT DO I DO NOW0 -
it's BS, plain and simple.
most ppl that refer to detoxing and cleansing toxins are implying that our bodies produce toxins that need to be eliminated from the body for optimal performance. Nothing could be further from the truth. Ever wonder why all of these evil toxins don't have a certain name or chemical composition? They're just called toxins bc it is BS.
There are actual toxins and toxicants present in the environment that can be detrimental to the human body. However, your liver and kidneys do a fantastic job of removing toxicants from the body. If they can't remove it, no amount of lemon juice will.0 -
So, in summary, there is no actual proof of any "toxins"? Got it.
Uh. I don't think that's it. It's that cleanses are not necessary as any toxins are removed by the body the way it is designed to perform. There is no need to fast or drink a green concoction. Just eat healthful foods and drink plenty of water.0 -
Personally, I am anti-toxin.
And some of you people are dangerously close to violating Community Guideline (all hail) #18...(although admittedly, my post could be construed as a violation of Community Guideline (all hail) #1a).
Also, you're giving me a headache. So please, knock it off.
:flowerforyou:0 -
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.
^crazy^My natruopathic doctor explained it to me this way. We live in a dirtier world than we think and our bodies can not tolerate the amount of junk we inhale, injest and intake. The best way to 'detoxify' our bodies is to pee, poop and slough skin. Which means we need to drink clean water and lots of it, eat healthy fiber in the packaging God provided and use a loofa.
^not crazy^0 -
Cleanses are crap. The only reason people get any benefit from them is correlative, not causative. Basically, most cleanses, as well as restricting you from a whole bunch of unnecessary things also restrict you from most sugar and alcohol. "Wow! I feel great after cleansing for 3 weeks!" Which should really read as, "Wow, I feel great after not eating sugar and drinking alcohol for 3 weeks!". Detoxifying??? Please. Biology 101 rules out that bit crap science.0
-
Toxins can seem allusive - a class in cellular biology can give you a decent grasp on how toxins enter the body and what they can do, but it doesn't do much to relate to our health. Too many toxins to cover.
But, I can give you one example of how/ why toxins are bad. I grew up on a tiny island off of West Seattle, WA called Vashon. Vashon was directly downwind from a copper smelter which spewed arsenic laced smog all over the Puget Sound area. I lived in one the most polluted sites for only a few years in my "pre-teen" era. Now in my late 20's, I was/ am experiencing fatigue and anxiety. Pretty normal stuff sure - but I actively work to live a reduced stress life, I eat healthy, exercise, etc. Conventional doctors didn't have any suggestions except to take drugs. I finally went to a natural path who tested my hair/ blood and found I had very high levels of the toxin Arsenic and cadmium. Arsenic prevents the update of many electrolytes, such as potassium - which can lead to elevated anxiety, along with other side effects. I have had to switch to primarily organic foods, try to find household products that are low in crud (ever thought about how much chemicals are in your mattress - that you spend 1/3 of your life on) and all kinds of fun stuff to avoid encountering toxins
It's hard work, but I slowly seem to be getting better. Plus it's an excuse to have my favorite treat - coconut milk (high potassium). So toxins my seem like a mythical creature, but they are out there and do cause harm.0 -
YOUSE GUISE
SWEET PERTATERZ R REELY GUD REMUVIN TOCKZINS.u guys i jus ingected hi fruktoes corn sirrup in2 me wut do i do
WUT DO U LYKE ON YER SWEET PERTATERZ?
YOU GUISE ADS TOKSINS TWO YUR SWEAT PUHTAITOES?0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.9K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions