Cleanse - why you are lucky they don't work
Options
Replies
-
Wow this was very informative especially since I was considering performing a cleanse. Of course I plan on doing further research based on your blog but just bringing this to my attention alone makes me grateful because until now I haven't heard one negative fact about the cleanse. :glasses:0
-
Seriously people? Don't you have jobs/lives? What is the benefit of this discussion to the general audience of MFP? For the majority, the fact that cleanses don't work is common knowledge. For a few, the efficacy of cleanses will remain beyond doubt no matter what intricate biochemical evidence from PubMed has emerged and is being quoted. Yet, here we have a six page discussion based on assumptions that (a) arsenic is the target toxin of cleanses and (b) the level of arsenic in livers of those undergoing cleanses is somehow elevated. Why not create a private group for flexing your rhetoric muscles and demonstrating your general sophistication to the like minded few?0
-
lol.
Read the post above you ay1978pa.0 -
where are the hippies?Science > Hippie mutha fuka's
Science can prove cleanses work but it's not in the best interest of the drug corporations so I don't know who is going to pay for it.
And you say it seems I'm making things up?
Science can grow tiny unicorns with blue eyes but it hasn't. Science has not proven cleanses work.
35-40% of research is public funded (100% of mine was) so if cleanses work, ask for a grant. There is research on broccoli - over 700 articles in PubMed when I looked. Let's not try to create a boogieman to blame the failure of published results.0 -
Seriously people? Don't you have jobs/lives? What is the benefit of this discussion to the general audience of MFP? For the majority, the fact that cleanses don't work is common knowledge. For a few, the efficacy of cleanses will remain beyond doubt no matter what intricate biochemical evidence from PubMed has emerged and is being quoted. Yet, here we have a six page discussion based on assumptions that (a) arsenic is the target toxin of cleanses and (b) the level of arsenic in livers of those undergoing cleanses is somehow elevated. Why not create a private group for flexing your rhetoric muscles and demonstrating your general sophistication to the like minded few?
First of all, this has been the most tame, least disrespectful thread I think I've ever seen on this topic.
Second, it's a public Internet forum. Why do you care so much? There are so many other less informative, less intellectual, waste of time forum conversations going on out in the wilds of the interwebz. You decide to take umbrage at this one? Lol0 -
Seriously people? Don't you have jobs/lives? What is the benefit of this discussion to the general audience of MFP? For the majority, the fact that cleanses don't work is common knowledge. For a few, the efficacy of cleanses will remain beyond doubt no matter what intricate biochemical evidence from PubMed has emerged and is being quoted. Yet, here we have a six page discussion based on assumptions that (a) arsenic is the target toxin of cleanses and (b) the level of arsenic in livers of those undergoing cleanses is somehow elevated. Why not create a private group for flexing your rhetoric muscles and demonstrating your general sophistication to the like minded few?
Why would you care? No one stuck a gun to your head and made you read this, much less post your crticism. Don't like it? Feel free to move on.0 -
Firstly, the intellectual value of this conversation is not to be taken for granted based on the overuse of big words and links to PubMed.First of all, this has been the most tame, least disrespectful thread I think I've ever seen on this topic.
Second, it's a public Internet forum. Why do you care so much? There are so many other less informative, less intellectual, waste of time forum conversations going on out in the wilds of the interwebz. You decide to take umbrage at this one? Lol
Second, the fact that there are less intellectual discussions doesn't automatically imply that this one doesn't belongs in Chit-Chat or a private group.
Just saying. This sub-forum might not be the best place for a quasi-science pissing contest.
Moving on...0 -
Seriously people? Don't you have jobs/lives? What is the benefit of this discussion to the general audience of MFP? For the majority, the fact that cleanses don't work is common knowledge. For a few, the efficacy of cleanses will remain beyond doubt no matter what intricate biochemical evidence from PubMed has emerged and is being quoted. Yet, here we have a six page discussion based on assumptions that (a) arsenic is the target toxin of cleanses and (b) the level of arsenic in livers of those undergoing cleanses is somehow elevated. Why not create a private group for flexing your rhetoric muscles and demonstrating your general sophistication to the like minded few?
Currently no, I do not have a life. I won't go into the details but this is good therapy for me. And the gym.
As to the general audience of MFP. I would think they are neither stupid nor lobotomized and have found interesting discussions here. If you don't, stick to to the "would mate/kiss the primate/flash my monkey junk" threads. Is in depth knowledge to be limited to only private discussions?
We can, in your tinyverse stick to I SUxOr CleANsEz LolZ.
The point, which you missed is a) arsenic is claimed as A target toxin by part of the cleanse faction on the site b) if so, a cleanse MIGHT be counter productive c) there is more evidence to a possible path for point b) (but rather hypothetical) than to the effectiveness or the physiological value of cleanses in medical research.0 -
While online rhetoric certainly has its place as a form of therapy, your rather hypothetical personal conclusions shouldn't be presented as facts, even if they are based on facts. I like how you bolded out MIGHT in the last paragraph - what a contrast with the assertive title you began this discussion with. Lastly, it is presumptive to assume that I don't enjoy an intelligent discussion and use text speak just because I don't flash my credentials. All the best.Currently no, I do not have a life. I won't go into the details but this is good therapy for me. And the gym.
As to the general audience of MFP. I would think they are neither stupid nor lobotomized and have found interesting discussions here. If you don't, stick to to the "would mate/kiss the primate/flash my monkey junk" threads. Is in depth knowledge to be limited to only private discussions?
We can, in your tinyverse stick to I SUxOr CleANsEz LolZ.
The point, which you missed is a) arsenic is claimed as A target toxin by part of the cleanse faction on the site b) if so, a cleanse MIGHT be counter productive c) there is more evidence to a possible path for point b) (but rather hypothetical) than to the effectiveness or the physiological value of cleanses in medical research.0 -
Seriously people? Don't you have jobs/lives? What is the benefit of this discussion to the general audience of MFP? For the majority, the fact that cleanses don't work is common knowledge. For a few, the efficacy of cleanses will remain beyond doubt no matter what intricate biochemical evidence from PubMed has emerged and is being quoted. Yet, here we have a six page discussion based on assumptions that (a) arsenic is the target toxin of cleanses and (b) the level of arsenic in livers of those undergoing cleanses is somehow elevated. Why not create a private group for flexing your rhetoric muscles and demonstrating your general sophistication to the like minded few?
How exactly is the discourse impacting you negatively, apart from the few minutes it took for you to decide to take out of your day to write your post complaining about it?0 -
While online rhetoric certainly has its place as a form of therapy, your rather hypothetical personal conclusions shouldn't be presented as facts, even if they are based on facts. I like how you bolded out MIGHT in the last paragraph - what a contrast with the assertive title you began this discussion with. Lastly, it is presumptive to assume that I don't enjoy an intelligent discussion and use text speak just because I don't flash my credentials. All the best.Currently no, I do not have a life. I won't go into the details but this is good therapy for me. And the gym.
As to the general audience of MFP. I would think they are neither stupid nor lobotomized and have found interesting discussions here. If you don't, stick to to the "would mate/kiss the primate/flash my monkey junk" threads. Is in depth knowledge to be limited to only private discussions?
We can, in your tinyverse stick to I SUxOr CleANsEz LolZ.
The point, which you missed is a) arsenic is claimed as A target toxin by part of the cleanse faction on the site b) if so, a cleanse MIGHT be counter productive c) there is more evidence to a possible path for point b) (but rather hypothetical) than to the effectiveness or the physiological value of cleanses in medical research.
It's not presumptive. You specifically asked us, in a very school playground manner, to take it elsewhere. Clearly you didn't enjoy the discussion here.
The purpose of titles is to grab attention and propose a subject matter - if you go ahead and read my posts - here and on any threads you'll notice that in general my language is weighed with terms that are usually intended to communicate uncertainty, imperfect conclusions and opinion. The thoughts here are based on observation and not facts, facts are even rarer animals, often smelled and rarely seen.
The txt speech is tongue in pocket. Don't take it seriously. Peace.0 -
I've heard some horror stories with cleansing so I choose to not bother with it. If it helps some folks though that's great, I personally have no interest in ever trying it out.0
-
Seriously people? Don't you have jobs/lives? What is the benefit of this discussion to the general audience of MFP? For the majority, the fact that cleanses don't work is common knowledge. For a few, the efficacy of cleanses will remain beyond doubt no matter what intricate biochemical evidence from PubMed has emerged and is being quoted. Yet, here we have a six page discussion based on assumptions that (a) arsenic is the target toxin of cleanses and (b) the level of arsenic in livers of those undergoing cleanses is somehow elevated. Why not create a private group for flexing your rhetoric muscles and demonstrating your general sophistication to the like minded few?
I'm self-employed.
I have a life.
I have ADHD and can type at 90 words a minute, so my very lengthy posts probably don't take half as long as people might think.
If it educates someone or makes them think then it's worth it. If it makes them choose not to spend money on something that doesn't work, or not do something that would harm their body, even better.
If people don't want to read this thread they can just ignore it.
I don't consider myself to be sophisticated and I like squats and deadlifts as much as an intellectual discussion. And Pendlay rows.0 -
Back on the subject since we do have one pro-cleanse person posting interesting ideas about a non-elucidated possible cleanse.
For others interested in "activating their liver" what foods might be pro-enzyme?
Broccoli, Brussel sprouts, broiled beef all induce CYP1A2, not necessarily very effectively but still...
St Johns Wort for 3A4?
What about all the other 2B, 2C, etc. etc.
What have we got that is more effective than broccoli a few times a week?0 -
Ignorance will never make you right.
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.[/b[
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*.
And "snarky" looks good on you.0 -
Back on the subject since we do have one pro-cleanse person posting interesting ideas about a non-elucidated possible cleanse.
For others interested in "activating their liver" what foods might be pro-enzyme?
Broccoli, Brussel sprouts, broiled beef all induce CYP1A2, not necessarily very effectively but still...
St Johns Wort for 3A4?
What about all the other 2B, 2C, etc. etc.
What have we got that is more effective than broccoli a few times a week?
So.... Crickets?0 -
Because it's yummy. And it isn't diseased, ducks normally achieve loaded livers in migration phases. And before we enter into a debate about gavage - I'm not for it, I get fois gras sans gavage (from Orleans or Spain) I brought my own, for my mother, but the stupid ban means I can't this type either. Meh, not the end of the world. Liverwurst is something totally different - it's like telling me to get a brownie when I can't find cheesecake in France.
Fois gras was banned.
Fois gras? I can't seem to get it.I'm sure they have liver pate sandwiches at several places in California!
I understand it, and I think that the right cleanse really is not going to cause the liver to release any more intermediate metabolites than normal. In fact I think the opposite. A cleanse will increase the liver function from inorganic arsenic to the end metabolites, thus reducing the intermediate metabolites. But it's just a theory.
California's Foie Gras Ban Goes Into Effect 7/1/2012
http://abcnews.go.com/US/californias-foie-gras-ban-effect/story?id=16687059
Why would you want to eat diseased liver? I've never tried it but I'm guessing I would prefer braunschweiger and liverwurst.
I found a video on it (see below if interested) and it doesn't look like cruelty at all to me. If I was going to be slaughtered I would like to be overfed first. People should eat more liver since it's one of the most nutrient rich animal foods. I wasn't telling you to get Liverwurst instead but that I would prefer it to fois gras. I'm probably wrong on this since it's considered to be one of the best tasting foods on the planet according to Anthony Bourdain. It's too expensive for me at what $45 a pound.
Anthony Bourdain on No Reservations, Foie Gras Not Cruel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABeWlY0KFv8
My idea of a cleanse is mixture of several diets, therapies, cleanses, and the most nutritional foods.
Excellent. Maybe you should write a book. That right there sounds like a steak with broccoli. Or fois gras. Certainly not the current set of recommended cleanses. Thanks for outlining those.
The right cleanse would be one with all the vitamins and minerals especially sulfur and supplements to help the Cytochrome P450 enzymes and the conjugation pathway work at optimum levels. It's fairly complicated and I don't have it all written out. Maybe I'll write a book.What is the right cleanse - please feel free to reference it and I will look into it openly. Are you telling us that a cleanse up regulates multiple enzyme (and non enzyme) pathways? Do we have a candidate treatment for hepatic insufficiency that medical research has been ignoring?
This is a start:
Methylation:Methionine, Co-factors (Magnesium, Folic Acid, B-12, Methyl Donors), Lipotropic nutrients (choline, methionine, betaine, folic acid, vitamin B12)
steaks as long as they're bison, lamb or elk are allowed. So is broccoli and fois gras. So are most animal livers besides beef and pork.
I really should have outlined them when I read all the books. So I just have to go by memory or get notes of the book online.
Apparently not, urothelial cells also metabolize As (III) and I'd suggest that instead of "release" you consider competition of clearance rates and enzymatic reaction rates.
I thought As(III) was just intermediate metabolite that the liver releases when it can't complete the phase II detoxification, not an end state metabolite?Not sure that what you are stating even makes it to a hypothesis - given that As (III) is both a end state metabolite and intermediate metabolite are the ratios different. In the arsenic poisoning events the treatment of choice has not been cleanses. I wonder why.
Prescribing a cleanse for arsenic poisoning would be like prescribing a heart health diet for a heart attack. It's a preventative diet, not a treatment.
Ok, agreed. Then as a preventative diet why not eat broccoli extract (or the other components of this cleanse) continuously? How does a three day or 10 day cleanse work better, as a preventative treatment, than a continuous diet. Taking your example, as preventative diet for a heart attack, no one would prescribe a diet of healthy eating for only 3-10 days.
Urothelial cells metabolizing As (III) could be a sign of an under functioning Phase II detoxification. I would really like a chart on the breakdown of arsenic in the liver.
Extracts are really just one dimension of the food and lose most of the vitamins and anything else that is water soluble. I really think a cleanse should be something that you can continue for the rest of your life(if you want to).
Some diets are just fruits and vegetables and nothing else. These are designed to get rid of a medical condition that has no cure with conventional medicine. Take the documentary "Fat, Sick and Nearly Dead." They both had serious skin allergies that were cured by drinking juice for 2 months. People on these diets usually lose muscle mass but it's worth it to them to get their lives back.
Interesting, so GST levels go up with liver damage. I suppose a healthy liver would be using it for phase II and a damaged one would continue to produce it and not use it depending on the area of damage. Thanks for the study.
I don't know that they are healthy, the point being, we don't know that they aren't either.
How do you know if they are healthy?
Yes, they are that healthy. Or compared to what?
But are the patients' livers that healthy?As to the As (III), it is one of the most basic metabolites of arsenic found in urine. Since it is the first step of methylation, occuring in the liver. I'm guessing it is leaving the liver. But here is a reference:
http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol84/mono84-6.pdf
What bio marker would you like to state improves with a cleanse that you want us to measure?
The amount of glutathione-S-transferase would be important. So would levels of B-12 and Folic acid for methylation.
Ligands? (Giving my age away - that what we called GST in my day)
Are you suggesting an increase in GST would be a sign of beneficial effects - Please consider this:
http://archsurg.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=390507Yes, it is a guess, I readily admit it. Everything pretty much is, but I can reference every one of those steps from medical research. Saying that a current cleanses (lemonade or whatever) as has been done here helps with heavy metal toxin processing is pie-in-the-sky, thumb-in-your-eye falsehood. There is no evidence of this. Will a specific cleanse provide a benefit in the future? Most likely - but will it be better than just including certain foods or supplements into your diet? Not convinced.
On the whole, I appreciate our interaction - you've brought the level of discussion up.
As to the fluidity of language it is going on around us constantly. The cross-lingual stuff is certainly very present, more so, in Europe, where I live mostly, but 80-90% of my family and childhood friends from the US and Mexico are trilingual or more. We are right in your back yard.
I agree that the master cleanse is worthless for heavy metal toxin processing. The foods I've heard that help with it would be greens. I tend to agree with lists like this although it's only part of the picture: http://nurturing-naturally.com/2012/04/12/foods-that-help-detox-your-body-of-heavy-metals/ Cleanses are really for people that have a medical condition that cannot be treated by conventional medicine, not to lose weight. Also I really would like to give my advice on a cleanse when people say they want to do a master cleanse.
Thanks, I've learned a fair amount. I appreciate intelligent conversation.
My boxing coach is bilingual and he brings up Spanish words for the training all the time. So I can see that fluidity is a part of knowing multiple languages.0 -
It's the same in the U.S. 5 a day of fruits and vegetables.
How are they going to patent fruits and vegetables? I guess they could genetically modify the seeds and sue people for trying to reuse their seeds when they get cross pollinated?
where are the hippies?Science > Hippie mutha fuka's
Science can prove cleanses work but it's not in the best interest of the drug corporations so I don't know who is going to pay for it.
it is in their interests... if they worked they'd patent them and make a lot of money
If all you are saying is that eating fruit and veg is good for your liver and kidneys, then I wouldn't disagree with you, and neither does the British government or national health service, as they regularly encourage people to get their "five a day" fruit and veg servings. They even offer guidance as to what counts as a whole serving of fruit or veg. So that's clearly not information that's being "suppressed" because it's "not in their interests" for people to know it.
However if you're saying that there are specific ways/regimes of vegetable eating that will do more for your liver and kidneys than just eating whatever fruits and veg you happen to enjoy eating, that's where I would disagree. And I would point out that particular blends can be patented, and regimes can be copyrighted, and both can be sold (and in fact have been and are). So there's no vested interest in trying to pretend it doesn't work if it did work. People manage to patent and copyright them even though they don't work. If it did work, then big pharma would patent the particular blends and sell them, and the instructions for how to do them would be published in peer-reviewed medical journals.
The body does seem to crave fruits and vegetables that it needs surprisingly enough. There are specific ways of eating that will help your liver and kidneys work better. The obvious ones are eating broccoli and other cruciferous vegetables. Less obvious is the vitamins, minerals and amino acids necessary for liver function. If everyone ate 1-2 cloves of garlic a day they would be much healthier. They would lower their blood pressure, cholesterol, and triglycerides. I think the key is there is no technology available that can copy the nutrition of fruits and vegetables eaten fresh picked. maybe someday it will be available in a pill form. But today's so called dehydrated vegetable extracts are missing a lot.
Science probably hasn't discovered all the compounds within fruits and vegetables yet.
Everyone's ignorant in a lot of things. There are too many books to read for one lifetime. But overall the masses aren't given a lot of information on nutrition unless you research it yourself. Education on vitamins, minerals, and amino acids for starters.
I said that it can be proven not that it's been done yet. Obviously some sort of study. I'm not sure about the logistics of a food study. I'm not really interested in setting it up since I already believe in them. It's not my fault if the masses remain ignorant. I try to help as many as I can.Go on, what's the science that proves that cleanses work
Call me cynical, but "it can be proven but it's not been done yet" doesn't really cut it.
And the masses are ignorant of what? Something that hasn't been proven yet? And that has no basis in human physiology either (other than the fact that eating fresh fruit and veg is good for your internal organs generally)... what's there to be educated about? No-one's proven the existence of unicorns yet, does that mean the masses are remaining ignorant for not believing in them?
Homo habilises are extinct. Well at least I haven't seen any but who can be sure about some people?Also, how did all the Homo habilises survive when they didn't know how to cleanse? They ate scavenged meat (hunting came later in human evolution) so would have ingested a lot more toxins than modern people do.
Our ancestors would have had little pollution besides their own feces. Sure plenty died of disease. Their diet would be a cleansing diet, not many processed foods and tons of sugar and fat with little nutritional value. And they would have gotten more exercise then the average person today.
Homo habilis is pseudo-extinct, not extinct, because it evolved into Homo ergaster which evolved (ultimately) into us. in other words, they didn't die out, they survived and bred, and the taller ones with bigger brains and better adapted hands for toolmaking became Homo ergaster.
Are you familiar with the diet of Homo habilis? They smashed up the bones of lion kill after the lions had finished, and probably had to chase away vultures with sticks and stones to get at it. They were not able to use fire so ate it all raw.
Can I do a cleanse diet with the raw bone marrow of lion kill, that's got lion saliva and vulture poo on it then?
Fire kills bacteria, many kinds of bacteria release toxins. Those toxins would have been in the food that Homo habilis consumed. Yet they managed to survive and evolve into Homo ergaster without knowing how to cleanse their livers. yes, they would have eaten plant foods, and yes this would have given them micronutrients that benefitted their organs and their immune system... but how is this any different to following the advice by most doctors (and even the British government) to eat plenty of fruit and veg? What difference does a "cleanse" make if a cleanse is just fruit and veg anyway?
I would suggest against eating vulture poo. I'm sure lion saliva was unlikely to have many toxins or bad bacteria. Not that it's a good comparison but I don't get sick when my dogs and cats lick me. Tongues are usually clean on healthy animals. Remember bacteria can be both good and bad. Animals at that time were all free range and most likely would be very healthy. not like factory farm animals. There diet is what a cleanse would be today. Free range animals and fruits and vegetables. They wouldn't sit around and eat condensed sugar and fat. Well maybe honey but that is loaded with nutrients while the others are stripped of the nutrients so they can be stored longer. Their diet was a cleanse.
A cleanse of just fruits and vegetables gets rid of the phytic acid in grains, seeds and nuts and the ammonia from protein digestion of meats and beans. Also the free radicals of rancid or overheated oils and the breakdown the liver has to do of the concentrated fats among other things. It's really for a medical condition though since you would lose muscle mass.0 -
well if you are talking about testing them like drugs its not going to work. You need the full spectrum of nutrients not just an isolated one.
Science can prove cleanses work but it's not in the best interest of the drug corporations so I don't know who is going to pay for it.
How can you possibly say that?
It's like me saying that science can prove that sticking my finger in my ear can cure indigestion, not that it's been done yet.
For cleanses we can test vitamin and mineral levels and adjust the cleanse according to that. Get enough people involved with health issues and it can be proved. Sort of like Gerson therapy for tuberculosis. Now sticking your finger in your ear might be hard to measure anything. Maybe the level of pain?
You missed my point. Or, is your point that they have not been tested due to some kind of conspiracy?
But you said science can prove it...how would it prove it?
I would get all the diseased individuals I could that can't be cured by conventional medicine that has to do with food choices (crohn's disease, irritable bowel, celiac, etc.), have them run blood tests measuring vitamins and minerals and whatever else seems appropriate. I'd have them do a cleanse based on the tests and test again at the end. Simplified version.0 -
well if you are talking about testing them like drugs its not going to work. You need the full spectrum of nutrients not just an isolated one.
Science can prove cleanses work but it's not in the best interest of the drug corporations so I don't know who is going to pay for it.
How can you possibly say that?
It's like me saying that science can prove that sticking my finger in my ear can cure indigestion, not that it's been done yet.
For cleanses we can test vitamin and mineral levels and adjust the cleanse according to that. Get enough people involved with health issues and it can be proved. Sort of like Gerson therapy for tuberculosis. Now sticking your finger in your ear might be hard to measure anything. Maybe the level of pain?
You missed my point. Or, is your point that they have not been tested due to some kind of conspiracy?
But you said science can prove it...how would it prove it?
I would get all the diseased individuals I could that can't be cured by conventional medicine that has to do with food choices (crohn's disease, irritable bowel, celiac, etc.), have them run blood tests measuring vitamins and minerals and whatever else seems appropriate. I'd have them do a cleanse based on the tests and test again at the end. Simplified version.
What would this cleanse entail?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