Cleanse - why you are lucky they don't work
Options
Replies
-
· Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation is violated by the planet Mercury. :happy:
· Joining the Hare Krishnas can be a life altering experience.
· Shooting up with heroin can make one feel really good.
Just some relevant facts, I'll leave it up to readers to place them in their contexts within this thread.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 understand and appreciate what you're saying and I think it's vaulable to point out that increased hepatic metabolism of heavy metals can be harmful. If proponents of the cleanses claim that this is one of the goals/results of the diet, I think you make an excellent and relevant point.
While I don't question anything you have presented regarding arsenic metabolism, I guess I do question the implication that upregulation of liver function is harmful, generally speaking, simply because more toxic metabolites will be produced. Obviously, if someone has hepatic insufficiency, increasing liver function is desirable. It may be that proponents of the cleanse/detox regimens think they are walking around with under-functioning livers. At some point, even toxic and carcinogenic arsenic metabolites become insignificant in the face of nitrogen build up in the blood and brain. I admit I am ignorant of what exactly they think is wrong with the liver or other systems and what are hoping to achieve. Good discussion, thank you.1 -
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*.0 -
Outside ofscience, yes. But we're talking about science.
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 -
^exactly....theory and hypothesis are very different.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. lol
I'd like a liver pate sandwich unfortunately, I'm sitting in California at the moment. Rather than try to nitpick at little things, why not admit that this brings out something you either had not understood, need to look at, or are willing to consider.
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
Also, you mentioned one should filter drinking water. Please be aware that many filters do absolutely nothing to remove arsenic. Choose wisely, if it is an issue (for example, certain well waters).
Peplum also means, in French, a large production film, a type of multicolored vast production of people, from the American/Italian films that had people wearing peplum. I intended its use in that sense -I also hesitated to use "populo" it seemed less to touch on the productive/marketing sense of cleanses. But feel free to challenge my vocabulary, English isn't my first language; however, with respect to cleanses, I invite you to stop the argumentum ad hominem - address the subject, don't try to challenge my vocabulary or whether I'm making up things.
You've gotten dressed down, sans peplum, twice.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 understand and appreciate what you're saying and I think it's vaulable to point out that increased hepatic metabolism of heavy metals can be harmful. If proponents of the cleanses claim that this is one of the goals/results of the diet, I think you make an excellent and relevant point.
While I don't question anything you have presented regarding arsenic metabolism, I guess I do question the implication that upregulation of liver function is harmful, generally speaking, simply because more toxic metabolites will be produced. Obviously, if someone has hepatic insufficiency, increasing liver function is desirable. It may be that proponents of the cleanse/detox regimens think they are walking around with under-functioning livers. At some point, even toxic and carcinogenic arsenic metabolites become insignificant in the face of nitrogen build up in the blood and brain. I admit I am ignorant of what exactly they think is wrong with the liver or other systems and what are hoping to achieve. Good discussion, thank you.
Thank you for this. You are partially right, I don't particularly think that, generally speaking, up regulation of the liver as a "toxic processor" is an issue but let's walk it through. There are a bunch of conditions that affect hepatic function like hepatitis. What typically happens when these people or normal functioning people are treated with dexamethasone (a corticosteroid or prednisone) that each increase the function certain enzymes of the liver? Well, the person being treated with a variety of other drugs that are actively metabolized will result in greater availability of the second drug. Dexamethasone increase of codeine bioavailability is classic. This is true for many protoxins. But you are right, the toxins need to be there to be activated - against imaginary arsenic, it isn't an issue.
Do we want to up regulate the other liver functions like cholesterol production, cell growth, bile production? I'm going to guess not really.
If I were a cleanse proponent, I'd take the position that a cleanse does not increase liver function but provides a pause. But that argument is pretty silly - how is 3 days a year going to make a difference?
Cleanses always remind me of Dr Strangelove.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".
If they read this they'd be thankful to be alive. And they would tell you it's a force not a law. Newton's work was a nice approximation. Galileo got it in the *kitten* by Kepler.
Seriously, the man believed tides came from sloshing of the oceans and that planets followed circular paths. So much for laws.0 -
I'm sure they have liver pate sandwiches at several places in California!I'd like a liver pate sandwich unfortunately, I'm sitting in California at the moment. Rather than try to nitpick at little things, why not admit that this brings out something you either had not understood, need to look at, or are willing to consider.
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.
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
Yes, I would go with reverse osmosis filters but they are expensive.Also, you mentioned one should filter drinking water. Please be aware that many filters do absolutely nothing to remove arsenic. Choose wisely, if it is an issue (for example, certain well waters).Peplum also means, in French, a large production film, a type of multicolored vast production of people, from the American/Italian films that had people wearing peplum. I intended its use in that sense -I also hesitated to use "populo" it seemed less to touch on the productive/marketing sense of cleanses. But feel free to challenge my vocabulary, English isn't my first language; however, with respect to cleanses, I invite you to stop the argumentum ad hominem - address the subject, don't try to challenge my vocabulary or whether I'm making up things.
You've gotten dressed down, sans peplum, twice.
Peplum in English only means a part of clothing so it doesn't really fit . You have been making things up in most of your posts. I like to state when you are since most of them are assumptions Also you have disregarded some of mine where I was addressing the subject, not that it matters.0 -
Observations show us apparent relationships/interactions between multiple things. Those are used to formulate a hypothesis (or model) and then experiments are used to test whether the relationship actually exists. A hypothesis is an idea that you can test. An experiment is how you test a hypothesis, by setting it up so that the outcome is dependent on the truth value of the hypothesis.
For example, a dermatologist observes that albinism is autosomal recessive in many humans, and that an albino cornsnake exists. He puts these observations/facts together to hypothesize that the albino cornsnake is caused by an autosomal recessive mutant. The albino is bred to a non-albino producing normal offspring. These first generation offspring are bred to each other and produce grandchildren in an approximate 3:1 ratio of normal to albino, and also produce a 1:1 ratio when bred back to the albino parent. The results were all consistent with the behavior of a recessive gene. The chance that the albinos appeared by coincidence or some reason other than a recessive gene are small. That was 50 years ago. Today after all of the breedings between now and then, the odds of them all having just been a coincidence are astronomically small.
Or, it is observed that planets orbit the sun. Gravity is hypothesized as the model to predict the behavior. The experiment involves measuring the actual motion of the planets against the model's predictions.
Or Saturn is observed to slow down and speed up at certain times, it is hypothesized that another planet is exerting a gravitational influence on Saturn, and the gravitational model is used to predict the location and mass of that other planet.
BTW molecular phylogeny provides more than sufficient evidence for macroevolution, and there is no dividing line between "micro" and "macro" anyway. The difference between that and gravity is that nobody has the slightest clue why or how gravity works, there is no known "mechanism" for it, yet we have a well-known and understood mechanism for evolution. We know exactly why and how it happens.0 -
Fois gras? I can't seem to get it.
I'm sure they have liver pate sandwiches at several places in California!I'd like a liver pate sandwich unfortunately, I'm sitting in California at the moment. Rather than try to nitpick at little things, why not admit that this brings out something you either had not understood, need to look at, or are willing to consider.
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.
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?
Not sure that what you are stating even makes it to a hypothesis - given that Ar(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.
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?
It sometimes happens, I use French/Spanish/English/German with some interchangeability.
Yes, I would go with reverse osmosis filters but they are expensive.Also, you mentioned one should filter drinking water. Please be aware that many filters do absolutely nothing to remove arsenic. Choose wisely, if it is an issue (for example, certain well waters).Peplum also means, in French, a large production film, a type of multicolored vast production of people, from the American/Italian films that had people wearing peplum. I intended its use in that sense -I also hesitated to use "populo" it seemed less to touch on the productive/marketing sense of cleanses. But feel free to challenge my vocabulary, English isn't my first language; however, with respect to cleanses, I invite you to stop the argumentum ad hominem - address the subject, don't try to challenge my vocabulary or whether I'm making up things.
You've gotten dressed down, sans peplum, twice.
Peplum in English only means a part of clothing so it doesn't really fit . You have been making things up in most of your posts. I like to state when you are since most of them are assumptions Also you have disregarded some of mine where I was addressing the subject, not that it matters.
As to making things up, each time you've stated so I've given a reference. I've also stated where things are unknown and presented where uncertainty exists but making things up? No.
For peplum - here is the definition: see French (2) - http://dictionnaire.reverso.net/francais-definition/péplum
Here is the Wikipedia definition of the French word. http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Péplum
Wouldn't you consider language a fluid thing and some words have multiple meanings and a certain play across languages/cultures?0 -
The entire value of this thread hangs on the definition of peplum.0
-
nos pontificatus habuerunt ignotae tamen indueris peplum.The entire value of this thread hangs on the definition of peplum.0 -
nos pontificatus habuerunt ignotae tamen indueris peplum.The entire value of this thread hangs on the definition of peplum.
We are pontificating over the use of peplum? or something like that. I think that is latin, but ever studied it.0 -
nos pontificatus habuerunt ignotae tamen indueris peplum.The entire value of this thread hangs on the definition of peplum.
We are pontificating over the use of peplum? or something like that. I think that is latin, but ever studied it.
We are pontificating over the unknown
While wearing a skirt
I studied it very little and very late. Still part of the French curriculum my oldest daughter saw.
0 -
Science > Hippie mutha fuka's0
-
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.
^^^i almost spit out the red wine in my mouth and all over the hotel room sheets. I think I adore you.0 -
nos pontificatus habuerunt ignotae tamen indueris peplum.The entire value of this thread hangs on the definition of peplum.
We are pontificating over the use of peplum? or something like that. I think that is latin, but ever studied it.
We are pontificating over the unknown
While wearing a skirt
ROFLMAO!!! Almost spit coffee!0 -
This. RAT for the win.
Physics joke: Laws are broken to be meant.
^^^i almost spit out the red wine in my mouth and all over the hotel room sheets. I think I adore you.
He has been on a roll with the nerd wit!! :drinker:0 -
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.
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)
I thought Ar(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 Ar(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.
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.
It sometimes happens, I use French/Spanish/English/German with some interchangeability.Peplum also means, in French, a large production film, a type of multicolored vast production of people, from the American/Italian films that had people wearing peplum. I intended its use in that sense -I also hesitated to use "populo" it seemed less to touch on the productive/marketing sense of cleanses. But feel free to challenge my vocabulary, English isn't my first language; however, with respect to cleanses, I invite you to stop the argumentum ad hominem - address the subject, don't try to challenge my vocabulary or whether I'm making up things.
You've gotten dressed down, sans peplum, twice.
Peplum in English only means a part of clothing so it doesn't really fit . You have been making things up in most of your posts. I like to state when you are since most of them are assumptions Also you have disregarded some of mine where I was addressing the subject, not that it matters.
As to making things up, each time you've stated so I've given a reference. I've also stated where things are unknown and presented where uncertainty exists but making things up? No.
For peplum - here is the definition: see French (2) - http://dictionnaire.reverso.net/francais-definition/péplum
Here is the Wikipedia definition of the French word. http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Péplum
Wouldn't you consider language a fluid thing and some words have multiple meanings and a certain play across languages/cultures?
Some of the connections in your posts seem to be made up. Saying that a person is lucky a cleanse doesn't work is a guess and that arsenic would behave differently in a person on a cleanse is a guess.
The fluidity of languages would be much more pronounced in Europe, not so much in the U.S. Maybe in some areas with multilingual people.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 934 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions