Cleanse - why you are lucky they don't work
Options
Replies
-
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". 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*.
They are really just definitions, not alternate realities. Often, a law refers only to the simple equations that describe a behavior. Laws are very narrow and simply defined. Theories (which investigate mechanisms/explanations behind the behaviors) do not graduate to become laws. There are, indeed, theories of gravity (relativity, quantum mechanics...) that are different from the law of gravity.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?
i would postulate that some people suffer from a sort of mental illness where they feel that they need to do penance for allowing themselves to become overweight (or not eating clean, or eating too many sweets, or whatever their particular bogeyman may be). the cleanse process seems to achieve this result for their psyche and when they complete it, they feel as if they've done their penance and can now go on with their lives... so the cleanse does nothing for their body, but perhaps it clears away their guilty consciences.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?
i would postulate that some people suffer from a sort of mental illness where they feel that they need to do penance for allowing themselves to become overweight (or not eating clean, or eating too many sweets, or whatever their particular bogeyman may be). the cleanse process seems to achieve this result for their psyche and when they complete it, they feel as if they've done their penance and can now go on with their lives... so the cleanse does nothing for their body, but perhaps it clears away their guilty consciences.
I have often wondered about this, and the same about other irrational dieting strategies.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?
Dark has no speed. It sits around doing nothing and not moving. It moves when it gets sucked into a dark sucker though, but how fast it moves depends on how strong the dark sucker is. Dark will move much more quickly towards a powerful darksucker like a star... but very slowly towards a little tiny weak one like a fairy light. Also, dark suckers get weaker over time, so they suck the dark less quickly, so the dark doesn't move as fast.
Never let anyone feed you bull about the "speed of light" a) light doesn't exist and b) if it did, of course you'd be able to move faster than it, all you have to do is build a faster space ship.... duh!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?
i would postulate that some people suffer from a sort of mental illness where they feel that they need to do penance for allowing themselves to become overweight (or not eating clean, or eating too many sweets, or whatever their particular bogeyman may be). the cleanse process seems to achieve this result for their psyche and when they complete it, they feel as if they've done their penance and can now go on with their lives... so the cleanse does nothing for their body, but perhaps it clears away their guilty consciences.
I have often wondered about this, and the same about other irrational dieting strategies.
I agree with this theory, er, hypothesis...pretty sure it's a psychological cleanse. Kind of like baptism is a spiritual cleanse. Like either are possible or rational.0 -
Bump0
-
I didn't understood most of it but I know you're awesome and now I know that we're awesome because our body automatically says to cleanses "Oh HEEELLLLLL NAWW!!!"
Keep on rocking Zyntx!
I love what Taunto said, so I will quote it. And agree profusely.
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?
:laugh: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?
You are not. That is what he is saying. In addition to what he is saying, there is the whole additional issue of what happens to gut flora with some of these "cleanes". Great post Evgeni!0 -
He is correct. Listen to him.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?
Garfield answered this many many years ago. It's slightly slower than the speed at which a tubby kitty can turn off a light switch and get snuggled in bed under the covers.0 -
Agree to disagree. The detox diet I am currently on is the most life altering thing I had ever done.
if this is true, i really pity the life you've had.0 -
Arsenic is very poisonous and not your standard liver breakdown. Yes the pdf is overly simplified. It is for the publlc not scientists.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.
The main point is 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.
Intermediate metabolites should not be released by the liver and seems to me to point to an impaired liver. I think a cleanse would help!
"Low levels of MMAIII and DMAIII have been detected in urine of individuals chronically exposed to inorganic arsenic via drinking water. "
Filter your drinking water!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.
Errr... The idea that "Laws" cannot be disputed is incorrect. Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation is certainly being challenged and only a generally accepted theory. For example, is the universal constant of gravitation constant over all space-time? I don't know but a lot of people are questioning it. At all scales? Einstein's LoG is certainly being challenged now. Theories.
Second, the "theory" of creation has no scientific underpinning and can be dismissed as wishful thinking from that basis. It may be right (that's the thing about science - we stand on quick sand) but it has no place in a science discussion, IMO.
Science is a messy, dirty place - it allows for both hypothesis and observation to get willy-nilly mixed up, there is no exactness except in mathematics and it's associated disciplines.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.
This. RAT for the win.
Physics joke: Laws are broken to be meant.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.
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]
Bout says it all...and clever.0 -
A theory can just mean an unproved assumption.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 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?
It would be misleading if the pro-cleanse sites and proponents did not specifically state that cleanses helped with detoxification path of the liver for heavy metals. What I have outlined is no more and no less than the detoxification path of arsenic in the liver, the most common heavy metal poison encountered by humans.
Since I do not believe that these cleanses work in up-regulating the detoxification paths of the liver, nor have I seen evidence to support this, I do conceed that a quantitative harmful evaluation would be incorrect. Qualitatively, I am going to hold on to my guns. Anything that increases metalic arsenic absorption in the gut, transport and conversion to an organoarsenic compound or to As(III) is harmful. What I've read on the Toruko incident of arsenic poisoning further supports metabolite bioactivation - cancers occurred in the kidneys and urinary tract from available metabolites.
While you are asking the right question - this thread takes on the approach, fully hypothetical but no more than the claims of the pro-cleanse peplum, of addressing what is going on in the liver, if an enhancement is occuring. I'm raising the bar. I expect further proof that not only is the liver increasing methylation processes (proof 1) but that those processes are also activated to increase renal clearance (proof 2). I'd like to address organometal sequestration in tissues and then have someone explain to me how cleanses chelate essentailly from irreversable enzyme binding in tissues (which account for about 10% of arsenic accumulation) another claim made but frankly I'm not sufficiently clear on the organoarsenic protein binding in tissue.
No one is answering your better question - i'm looking at the details of arsenic and other metal metabolism in the meantime.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?
It would be misleading if the pro-cleanse sites and proponents did not specifically state that cleanses helped with detoxification path of the liver for heavy metals. What I have outlined is no more and no less than the detoxification path of arsenic in the liver, the most common heavy metal poison encountered by humans.
Since I do not believe that these cleanses work in up-regulating the detoxification paths of the liver, nor have I seen evidence to support this, I do conceed that a quantitative harmful evaluation would be incorrect. Qualitatively, I am going to hold on to my guns. Anything that increases metalic arsenic absorption in the gut, transport and conversion to an organoarsenic compound or to As(III) is harmful. What I've read on the Toruko incident of arsenic poisoning further supports metabolite bioactivation - cancers occurred in the kidneys and urinary tract from available metabolites.
While you are asking the right question - this thread takes on the approach, fully hypothetical but no more than the claims of the pro-cleanse peplum, of addressing what is going on in the liver, if an enhancement is occuring. I'm raising the bar. I expect further proof that not only is the liver increasing methylation processes (proof 1) but that those processes are also activated to increase renal clearance (proof 2). I'd like to address organometal sequestration in tissues and then have someone explain to me how cleanses chelate essentailly from irreversable enzyme binding in tissues (which account for about 10% of arsenic accumulation) another claim made but frankly I'm not sufficiently clear on the organoarsenic protein binding in tissue.
No one is answering your better question - i'm looking at the details of arsenic and other metal metabolism in the meantime.
I'd like proof that As(III) is released from a healthy liver. Also peplum seems to mean skirt or extension of a garment not people. lol0 -
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?
Dark has no speed. It sits around doing nothing and not moving. It moves when it gets sucked into a dark sucker though, but how fast it moves depends on how strong the dark sucker is. Dark will move much more quickly towards a powerful darksucker like a star... but very slowly towards a little tiny weak one like a fairy light. Also, dark suckers get weaker over time, so they suck the dark less quickly, so the dark doesn't move as fast.
Never let anyone feed you bull about the "speed of light" a) light doesn't exist and b) if it did, of course you'd be able to move faster than it, all you have to do is build a faster space ship.... duh!
First, I like you a LOT. Second, I am not satisfied that dark has no speed. Why? Because, when we turn on a lamp, it takes a fraction of time for the action to result in light. That is a measurable event. When we turn OFF the lamp, it goes dark. Again, another measurable event. My question then has been: if we can measure the speed of ON (light), than wouldn't the speed of OFF (dark) be the same speed?
Now don't EVEN get me started on the fact that the universe DOES have an edge.
(That's a topic for a whole other thread) 0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions