Cleanse - why you are lucky they don't work
Replies
-
I know, right? Look at schematic diagrams and the abbreviation for a light bulb is often "DS" ... dark sucker.Also, there's no such thing as light. Light is merely the absence of dark. Lights do not emit light, they suck dark.
absolutely. and we should all swallow fairy lights to cleanse the dark out of our colons
and then poop rainbows
For some reason, I read that as croutons - and I don't even like croutons
Obviously the toxins are causing neurological symptoms. I urge you to seek immediate treatment from a holistic or energy healer. A real doctor wouldn't properly know how to help you.
Croutons are the result of so much dark in the colon that it all sticks together to form small, bread-like chunks. The colon absolutely must be cleansed immediately, as this is known to cause neurological symptoms in severe cases. What you really need to do is swallow enough fairy lights to light the entire Trafalgar Square christmas tree, plus as much of the Blackpool illuminations as can be physically swallowed, to really thoroughly cleanse the colon and all the rest of the insides of dark.
Repeat until poop is truly rainbow coloured.
(apologies to anyone who is eating croutons while reading this...)0 -
There are so many things wrong with that link that I'm not even sure where to start. I'm just still laughing over the idea that they tried to state that EVERY possible symptom a person could experience is caused by liver problems. Also, jaundice is yellow, not red. I've had liver issues, and I turned yellow. Never did I have red palms, they were also yellow. Liver spots also have nothing to do with the liver, they are a skin pigmentation issue caused by sun exposure.
http://balancedconcepts.net/liver_phases_detox_paths.pdf
Can you please enlighten us as to which specific detox(es) are demonstrated to speed up both liver detoxification and the kidneys' removal of which elements/molecule(s)?5) if cleanses worked and increased the liver detoxification processes such as methylation, the resulting metabolites would no longer be cleared sufficiently fast resulting in more toxic metabolites being left available.
You made step 5 up. It's just your theory. Why wouldn't they be no longer cleared sufficiently fast enough? Is the detox just going to speed up methylation and not the removal?
Detoxes done right speed up liver detoxification all the way to the toilet bowl.
Thanks in advance.:happy:
The foods that speed up the phases of liver detoxification and removing from the diet those that hinder it.
The entire link is a joke.0 -
Every prof i've ever had in my four years of biochemistry has insisted that cleanses are BAD. Your body has the mechanisms to clear what's not meant to be. There's no point in trying to explain it to people. Biochem is a whole different language......And i'm too lazy to argue with people
0 -
What I don't understand is... why go through it? Why put yourself, your mind and body through hell like cleanse? I have seen my friends try it, there was temporary results, nothing that lasted. And even the temporary results were kinda meh.
What is so bad about eating right, working out and enjoying your health? Why make yourself miserable all the time by eating only a specific food or by drinking certain juice?0 -
Srsly. Reminds me of the Far Side horse vet book where the treatment for everything is the same...I'm just still laughing over the idea that they tried to state that EVERY possible symptom a person could experience is caused by liver problems.
Or this one:
0 -
ON a more serious note...
"cleansing" is pseudoscience, and as the OP stated, if it actually changed how your liver functions it would probably do more harm than good, as the body knows what it's doing. Your body is the result of millions of years of evolution, and if our livers, kidneys and colons couldn't cleanse themselves, we wouldn't be here having this conversation.
points to remember:
- your liver and kidneys already do a good job. If they are not working right, you need to see a doctor immediately. There are legitimate medical treatments which detoxify the blood, such as kidney dialysis, which is used in cases of kidney failure, which is a medical emergency. If your liver and/or kidneys are failing, you will become ill very quickly, and probably be treated in the emergency department, then referred to a specialist doctor.
- being properly hydrated and nourished means your liver and kidneys will be able to function slightly more effectively. As is the case for all the organs in your body, they require nutrition and work better when you feed them properly. Ironically "cleanse" diets that involve semi-starvation probably put more strain on your liver and kidneys than actually helping them. Eating a balanced diet with a sensible calorie deficit and ensuring that you're properly hydrated will be better for your liver and kidneys than all these "cleanses".
- your colon also cleanses itself. Again, the right nutrition enables the colon to do its job well. The colon needs a sensible amount of dietary fibre and plenty of water. A healthy, balanced diet is best for your colon. If there are toxins in your colon that are likely to harm you, e.g. salmonella toxin from infection by salmonella bacteria, the colon cleanses itself very effectively through diarrhoea. The immune system also helps to neutralise the toxins and kill the bacteria.
- some products sold as colon cleanses contain a substance that molds itself to the inside of the colon, and you poo it out. It looks weird and disgusting when you poo it out, and the producers of these products claim it's all the gunk that's been cleansed out of your intestines. It's not, it's the product that you ate/drank to do the "cleanse" in the first place. That's just what it looks like when it comes out the other end.
- chelation therapy is a legitimate medical treatment for poisining by heavy metals such as arsenic, lead or mercury. It is, however, extremely dangerous, as it can also result in huge losses of other metals from the body, such as calcium (yes that's a metal), which is not only required by your bones but also your nerves, so losing too much calcium in the process can cause dire problems or even kill you. Hence why it's only done in cases where a) the patient is very closely medically supervised and b) the person has accidentally ingested enough of the heavy metals in question that their life is in danger. It is not used in any other circumstances. Unfortunately there have been cases where this has been attempted by alternative practitioners, and it's resulted in the death of people, including children in a couple of cases.0 -
Great post, thank you OP :flowerforyou:0
-
Yeah, I definitely love you.
0 -
People who argue that things are "just a theory" really need to look into scientific terminology before arguing.
I'm not usually a big fan of wiki, but their description is actually really good;
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.
What you may like to call a "theory" is what scientists call a hypothesis.0 -
I'm glad you're on my friend list.
0 -
I disagree with gravity. Also numbers. It's just a theory, I mean have you ever counted to a trillion?
I am anti-cleanses, anti-toxins, anti-drugs, and anti-gravity.0 -
People who argue that things are "just a theory" really need to look into scientific terminology before arguing.
I'm not usually a big fan of wiki, but their description is actually really good;
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.
What you may like to call a "theory" is what scientists call a hypothesis.
NO.. A hypothesis is the SECOND step in the scientific method (Observation being the first). A theory is the end result, based on numerous experiments done over a series of time that almost create the same results. A theory may lead to a new hypothesis, which can lead to a new theory.
A "law" is an irrefutable conclusion of scientific data and evidence, collaborated by the scientific community. For every test, the exact same results will occur and the exact same conclusions can be agree upon.
The theory of evolution has not been proven, therefore it cannot be 100% irrefutable. This is why we cannot dismiss the theory of creation. (altho MORE evidence exists to support this theory)
The theory of creation has not been proven, therefore it cannot be 100% irrefutable. This is why we cannot dismiss the theory of evolution.
NEITHER OF THE ABOVE ARE LAWS.
The law of gravity, however, has been proven, therefore it cannot be disputed.0 -
After eating birthday cake with multicolored frosting we've all been pooping rainbows in my house this week.
I know, right? Look at schematic diagrams and the abbreviation for a light bulb is often "DS" ... dark sucker.Also, there's no such thing as light. Light is merely the absence of dark. Lights do not emit light, they suck dark.
absolutely. and we should all swallow fairy lights to cleanse the dark out of our colons
and then poop rainbows
Eating a box of crayons works the same way. As does a gross count of Skittles. They've considered changing their company's tag line from "Taste the Rainbow" to "Poop the Rainbow". I kinda like the new version.0 -
http://balancedconcepts.net/liver_phases_detox_paths.pdf
Can you please enlighten us as to which specific detox(es) are demonstrated to speed up both liver detoxification and the kidneys' removal of which elements/molecule(s)?5) if cleanses worked and increased the liver detoxification processes such as methylation, the resulting metabolites would no longer be cleared sufficiently fast resulting in more toxic metabolites being left available.
You made step 5 up. It's just your theory. Why wouldn't they be no longer cleared sufficiently fast enough? Is the detox just going to speed up methylation and not the removal?
Detoxes done right speed up liver detoxification all the way to the toilet bowl.
Thanks in advance.:happy:
The foods that speed up the phases of liver detoxification and removing from the diet those that hinder it.
yeah, I'm totally going to accept that a document from a source called "http://balancedconcepts.net/" who offers "nutritional services" is more informed than something published by http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed . Sounds legit.0 -
http://balancedconcepts.net/liver_phases_detox_paths.pdf
Can you please enlighten us as to which specific detox(es) are demonstrated to speed up both liver detoxification and the kidneys' removal of which elements/molecule(s)?5) if cleanses worked and increased the liver detoxification processes such as methylation, the resulting metabolites would no longer be cleared sufficiently fast resulting in more toxic metabolites being left available.
You made step 5 up. It's just your theory. Why wouldn't they be no longer cleared sufficiently fast enough? Is the detox just going to speed up methylation and not the removal?
Detoxes done right speed up liver detoxification all the way to the toilet bowl.
Thanks in advance.:happy:
The foods that speed up the phases of liver detoxification and removing from the diet those that hinder it.
yeah, I'm totally going to accept that a document from a source called "http://balancedconcepts.net/" who offers "nutritional services" is more informed than something published by http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed . Sounds legit.
Wellll, it's on the interwebs, so it must be true. They can't post anything on the interwebs that isn't true, right?0 -
Srsly. Reminds me of the Far Side horse vet book where the treatment for everything is the same...I'm just still laughing over the idea that they tried to state that EVERY possible symptom a person could experience is caused by liver problems.
Or this one:
I KNEW there was a reason to keep you on my FL, Serp!! Absolutely one of my favorite cartoonists!0 -
A "law" is an irrefutable conclusion of scientific data and evidence, collaborated by the scientific community. For every test, the exact same results will occur and the exact same conclusions can be agree upon.
The theory of evolution has not been proven, therefore it cannot be 100% irrefutable. This is why we cannot dismiss the theory of creation. (altho MORE evidence exists to support this theory)
The theory of creation has not been proven, therefore it cannot be 100% irrefutable. This is why we cannot dismiss the theory of evolution.
NEITHER OF THE ABOVE ARE LAWS.
The law of gravity, however, has been proven, therefore it cannot be disputed.
No. A law is a simple fact that exists universally It can be demonstrated with repeated successful testing, but it is not a former theory that has accumulated enough evidence to become "proven". That is a misunderstanding of how the scientific method works. Theories can become generally accepted when they have enough evidence behind them, but they never (or are they expected to) become laws. Both are informative and useful in science.0 -
I disagree with gravity. Also numbers. It's just a theory, I mean have you ever counted to a trillion?
^^^ this
Gravity is but a myth invented by people who are too lazy to try to fly. We have all been brainwashed at birth to believe that we can't fly because of gravity, but if we work hard enough to get over this brainwashing, we can, in fact, fly.
Gravity is basically force at a distance, pfft!!! that breaks some laws of physics. And no scientist has yet been able to find any graviton particles.
[/pseudoscience]
I keep my flying adventures on the DL, away from the brainwashed masses :drinker:0 -
http://balancedconcepts.net/liver_phases_detox_paths.pdf
Can you please enlighten us as to which specific detox(es) are demonstrated to speed up both liver detoxification and the kidneys' removal of which elements/molecule(s)?5) if cleanses worked and increased the liver detoxification processes such as methylation, the resulting metabolites would no longer be cleared sufficiently fast resulting in more toxic metabolites being left available.
You made step 5 up. It's just your theory. Why wouldn't they be no longer cleared sufficiently fast enough? Is the detox just going to speed up methylation and not the removal?
Detoxes done right speed up liver detoxification all the way to the toilet bowl.
Thanks in advance.:happy:
The foods that speed up the phases of liver detoxification and removing from the diet those that hinder it.
That's an interesting pdf - but it has some junk science that someone has either made up or misunderstood or over simplified.
Lets take arsenic - the liver does not just metabolize arsenic into water soluble compounds that are simply eliminated. Actually metalic arsenic is more water soluble than the organoarsenic metabolites, methylation of metalic arsenic results in bioactive intermediates.
The phrase " The role of these various enzyme activities in the liver is to convert fat soluble toxins into water soluble substances that can be excreted in the urine" in the pdf is incorrect. The general idea that these converted substances are detoxified is often correct but not so for arsenic. The metabolites are highly toxic. Time for another reference, so you don't tell me again that I'm making things up.In humans, as in most mammalian species, inorganic arsenic is methylated to methylarsonic acid (MMA) and dimethylarsinic acid (DMA) by alternating reduction of pentavalent arsenic to trivalent and addition of a methyl group from S-adenosylmethionine. The methylation of inorganic arsenic may be considered a detoxification mechanism, as the end metabolites, MMA and DMA, are less reactive with tissue constituents, less toxic, and more readily excreted in the urine than is inorganic arsenic, especially the trivalent form (AsIII, arsenite). The latter is highly reactive with tissue components, due to its strong affinity for sulfhydryl groups. Thus, following exposure to AsV the first step in the biotransformation, i.e. the reduction to AsIII, may be considered a bioactivation. Also, reactive intermediate metabolites of high toxicity, mainly MMAIII, may be formed and distributed to tissues. Low levels of MMAIII and DMAIII have been detected in urine of individuals chronically exposed to inorganic arsenic via drinking water. However, the contribution of MMAIIIand DMAIII to the toxicity observed after intake of inorganic arsenic by humans remains to be elucidated. The major route of excretion of arsenic is via the kidneys. Evaluation of the methylation of arsenic is mainly based on the relative amounts of the different metabolites in urine. On average human urine contains 10-30% inorganic arsenic, 10-20% MMA and 60-80% DMA
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11484904
This address point 3, too.
Interesting, but they key words for someone reading this are "hypothesis" and also "in vivo and in vitro." I don't have access to PubMed outside of work, so I can't read the methods section as I'm not going to pay for it, but I would be interested to see which "vivo" this is being studied in. As much as we love lab rats, the rules of their bodies do not always translate to humans (and let's be honest, this won't be a study we'll be seeing in humans anytime soon, because who's going to give this much arsenic to people?). They are excellent at giving us clues, but that's about it, and you won't find many people in the medical field hanging their hats on rat studies, thank goodness. Same goes for the other "mammals" mentioned.
I also tend to discount "in vitro," as there are many phenomena that occur in test tubes that are not replicable in the human body. Ketorolac and osseous nonunion in adult arthroplasty, for example. Great to take as a mental note, but not necessarily a reality.
You're also reading an article from 1993, which is considered out of date by human medical standards.
That all being said, I don't like cleanses, either. Or pooping croutons and rainbows (rainbow croutons?!?!). I do like unicorn farts though!!0 -
People who argue that things are "just a theory" really need to look into scientific terminology before arguing.
I'm not usually a big fan of wiki, but their description is actually really good;
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.
What you may like to call a "theory" is what scientists call a hypothesis.
NO.. A hypothesis is the SECOND step in the scientific method (Observation being the first). A theory is the end result, based on numerous experiments done over a series of time that almost create the same results. A theory may lead to a new hypothesis, which can lead to a new theory.
A "law" is an irrefutable conclusion of scientific data and evidence, collaborated by the scientific community. For every test, the exact same results will occur and the exact same conclusions can be agree upon.
The theory of evolution has not been proven, therefore it cannot be 100% irrefutable. This is why we cannot dismiss the theory of creation. (altho MORE evidence exists to support this theory)
The theory of creation has not been proven, therefore it cannot be 100% irrefutable. This is why we cannot dismiss the theory of evolution.
NEITHER OF THE ABOVE ARE LAWS.
The law of gravity, however, has been proven, therefore it cannot be disputed.
Science moved away from calling anything a "law" several years ago--gravity IS a theory. It may not be true, but after repeated experimentation, it is the best explanation for the observed phenomenon. Science wants to always be open to the possibility of new discoveries and explanations. As pp said, don't confuse scientific theory with run of the mill theory that regular Joes like to talk about.0 -
Agree to disagree. The detox diet I am currently on is the most life altering thing I had ever done.
It appears to me that this isn't an issue of agree or disagree. I could disagree with the concept that the earth revolves around the sun, but that wouldn't make it untrue. That it has had some positive effects on you doesn't change the fact that you are increasing your risk of cancer. You can choose to take that risk, but you can't just say the facts aren't the facts. The reality is that there are lots of things that feel good to us that aren't good for us.0 -
Agree to disagree. The detox diet I am currently on is the most life altering thing I had ever done.
It appears to me that this isn't an issue of agree or disagree. I could disagree with the concept that the earth revolves around the sun, but that wouldn't make it untrue. That it has had some positive effects on you doesn't change the fact that you are increasing your risk of cancer. You can choose to take that risk, but you can't just say the facts aren't the facts. The reality is that there are lots of things that feel good to us that aren't good for us.
I think the "detox" would only increase the risk of cancer if it actually did what it claims to do, which it does not (and those using them should be thankful for that). Am I misunderstanding the OP?0 -
People who argue that things are "just a theory" really need to look into scientific terminology before arguing.
I'm not usually a big fan of wiki, but their description is actually really good;
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.
What you may like to call a "theory" is what scientists call a hypothesis.
NO.. A hypothesis is the SECOND step in the scientific method (Observation being the first). A theory is the end result, based on numerous experiments done over a series of time that almost create the same results. A theory may lead to a new hypothesis, which can lead to a new theory.
A "law" is an irrefutable conclusion of scientific data and evidence, collaborated by the scientific community. For every test, the exact same results will occur and the exact same conclusions can be agree upon.
The theory of evolution has not been proven, therefore it cannot be 100% irrefutable. This is why we cannot dismiss the theory of creation. (altho MORE evidence exists to support this theory)
The theory of creation has not been proven, therefore it cannot be 100% irrefutable. This is why we cannot dismiss the theory of evolution.
NEITHER OF THE ABOVE ARE LAWS.
The law of gravity, however, has been proven, therefore it cannot be disputed.
Science moved away from calling anything a "law" several years ago--gravity IS a theory. It may not be true, but after repeated experimentation, it is the best explanation for the observed phenomenon. Science wants to always be open to the possibility of new discoveries and explanations. As pp said, don't confuse scientific theory with run of the mill theory that regular Joes like to talk about.
I bet Sir Isaac Newton, Galileo and other notable scientists would be pretty PIS*D off if they read this. Until the day we start to drop things and they fly upwards instead of downwards, I will continue to refer to gravity as a "law". 0 -
I think we need to remember that although the liver does break some neutral substances down into toxic metabolites as referenced by the OP, it also breaks potentially harmful substances down into neutral metabolites and is critical for the breakdown of nutrients into usable forms. I assume this is what the "detox" diets are trying to enhance. With respect, I think claiming that enhancing liver function, assuming such a thing is possible, is qualitatively harmful because of arsenic metabolism is a bit misleading. I think a better question is how do these so called detox diets actually work and what are they doing?0
-
People who argue that things are "just a theory" really need to look into scientific terminology before arguing.
I'm not usually a big fan of wiki, but their description is actually really good;
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.
What you may like to call a "theory" is what scientists call a hypothesis.
NO.. A hypothesis is the SECOND step in the scientific method (Observation being the first). A theory is the end result, based on numerous experiments done over a series of time that almost create the same results. A theory may lead to a new hypothesis, which can lead to a new theory.
A "law" is an irrefutable conclusion of scientific data and evidence, collaborated by the scientific community. For every test, the exact same results will occur and the exact same conclusions can be agree upon.
The theory of evolution has not been proven, therefore it cannot be 100% irrefutable. This is why we cannot dismiss the theory of creation. (altho MORE evidence exists to support this theory)
The theory of creation has not been proven, therefore it cannot be 100% irrefutable. This is why we cannot dismiss the theory of evolution.
NEITHER OF THE ABOVE ARE LAWS.
The law of gravity, however, has been proven, therefore it cannot be disputed.
Science moved away from calling anything a "law" several years ago--gravity IS a theory. It may not be true, but after repeated experimentation, it is the best explanation for the observed phenomenon. Science wants to always be open to the possibility of new discoveries and explanations. As pp said, don't confuse scientific theory with run of the mill theory that regular Joes like to talk about.
This may depend on the discipline. My understanding is that the law of gravity describes the the behavior of gravity (equations that can be used to make predictions), but does not investigate WHY the behavior exists. This would be left to theory, and would involve the usual scientific method of inquiry. The two can co-exist. Laws are typically simple equations that accurately describe a process. Theories investigate why the behavior occurs.0 -
A "law" is an irrefutable conclusion of scientific data and evidence, collaborated by the scientific community. For every test, the exact same results will occur and the exact same conclusions can be agree upon.
The theory of evolution has not been proven, therefore it cannot be 100% irrefutable. This is why we cannot dismiss the theory of creation. (altho MORE evidence exists to support this theory)
The theory of creation has not been proven, therefore it cannot be 100% irrefutable. This is why we cannot dismiss the theory of evolution.
NEITHER OF THE ABOVE ARE LAWS.
The law of gravity, however, has been proven, therefore it cannot be disputed.
No. A law is a simple fact that exists universally It can be demonstrated with repeated successful testing, but it is not a former theory that has accumulated enough evidence to become "proven". That is a misunderstanding of how the scientific method works. Theories can become generally accepted when they have enough evidence behind them, but they never (or are they expected to) become laws. Both are informative and useful in science.
I reject your reality and substitute it with my own. A law cannot become a law until it begins as a theory "in principle".
As I was taught:
An observation becomes a hypothesis, A hypothesis becomes an experiment. An experiment is repeated numerous time, while data is collected. Data is analyzed, then conclusions are drawn. The conclusions become a theory, collaborated with others within the scientific community. Scientists set out to DISprove the conclusions, because scientists are more like to attempt to disprove than prove (those pesky scientists!). In their endless attempts to disprove some theoretical concept, they realize that, no matter what they do, or endless numbers of experiments, that theory cannot be disproved. Hence, a law is made that says "IF this is done, then THIS will result, EVERY SINGLE TIME."
The evolutionary process that brought us to our human status has NOT been proven. However, it is pretty much agreed upon that micro-evolution has occurred which is why we have species of animals living in darkened waters that have lost their eyes due to lack of necessity. (just one example of evolution at a micro level). It also helps to explain the de-evolution of the human as evidenced by shows like Honey Boo Boo and The Real World.
That is how it was taught to me and how I understand it to be.
Dropping an apple or object repeatedly was at first a theory, then became a law, based on repeated, identical results. And I think calling it a "theory" now is a misnomer of epic proportions. A LAW is a LAW.
Of course, I'm still upset about the declassification of Pluto's planetary status - those rat *kitten*.0 -
3) The "detoxing" process of the liver actually increases the bioavailability of the metabolite and increases the cancer causing effects of arsenic.
Can you please explain to me in further detail about #3. Specifically how does the "detoxing process increase the bioavailability.
Thanks.
How many accounts do you have?0 -
Gravity is but a myth invented by people who are too lazy to try to fly. We have all been brainwashed at birth to believe that we can't fly because of gravity, but if we work hard enough to get over this brainwashing, we can, in fact, fly.
Gravity is basically force at a distance, pfft!!! that breaks some laws of physics. And no scientist has yet been able to find any graviton particles.
Also, there's no such thing as light. Light is merely the absence of dark. Lights do not emit light, they suck dark. They appear brighter the closer you get to the light, because that's where they are sucking the most dark. If you don't believe me, then take a dead battery out of a torch and open it up. It's full of dark powder. That's all the dark that the torch has sucked. The battery dies because it's sucked too much dark. The sun may appear to be giving light, but it's actually an extremely efficient dark sucker. Space is mostly full of dark, but the area around stars appears to be brighter, because stars are such efficient dark suckers.
[/pseudoscience]
You just made my day!0 -
Gravity is but a myth invented by people who are too lazy to try to fly. We have all been brainwashed at birth to believe that we can't fly because of gravity, but if we work hard enough to get over this brainwashing, we can, in fact, fly.
Gravity is basically force at a distance, pfft!!! that breaks some laws of physics. And no scientist has yet been able to find any graviton particles.
Also, there's no such thing as light. Light is merely the absence of dark. Lights do not emit light, they suck dark. They appear brighter the closer you get to the light, because that's where they are sucking the most dark. If you don't believe me, then take a dead battery out of a torch and open it up. It's full of dark powder. That's all the dark that the torch has sucked. The battery dies because it's sucked too much dark. The sun may appear to be giving light, but it's actually an extremely efficient dark sucker. Space is mostly full of dark, but the area around stars appears to be brighter, because stars are such efficient dark suckers.
[/pseudoscience]
You just made my day!
Nobody has ever been able to answer this question: What is the speed of dark?0 -
I love how posts about how cleanses are stupid turn into discussions about what science means, and how proper scientists use it....0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions