
You can’t detox your body. It’s a myth - prostoalex
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/dec/05/detox-myth-health-diet-science-ignorance?CMP=fb_gu
======
pzxc
Hmm. Well, although there is certainly plenty of snake oil sold on the market,
you CAN detox your body just like you can "tox" it.

If you smoke and drink and eat poorly every day, you are putting toxins into
your system.

If you stop doing this, your system will "detox".

But you don't need a product to do it -- fasting is probably the most
effective way.

The possible benefits/drawbacks of this is another matter.

But don't pretend like there aren't toxins we put into our system, or that if
we stop adding more toxins that the level of toxins in our system won't
reduce. Because it will. And that is detoxification.

~~~
dalke
That isn't detoxification, it's excretion. The article even says it:

"If toxins did build up in a way your body couldn’t excrete ..."

~~~
sopooneo
Strictly uninformed logic hear, but it seems considering "excretion" and
"detoxification" mutually exclusive concepts is not correct. If you were
putting toxins (of any definition) into your body, slightly faster than your
liver/skin/lungs could remove them, they would slowly build up. Perhaps they
would make you feel sick before they killed you. Or perhaps the filter rate is
proportional to the current level, so you reach an equilibrium at a point that
makes you feel ill, but doesn't kill you.

If all this is in any way valid, then we might hypothesize that simply
stopping putting "toxins" into your body for a period would allow a daily net
loss as your body filtered them out. This would not require any special
"cleanse", but simply living strictly on foods/drinks that did not contain
whatever stuff you were trying to eliminate. This might allow them to decrease
to a level where you felt better. Perhaps after that you would go back to your
old life-style and let the "toxins" build up again, or you could input them at
a level that your body could eliminate them.

Apart from aversion to the now coopted phrase "cleanse", could someone with
actual knowledge say whether any of this conjecture aligns with actually
physiology/metabolism?

~~~
dalke
Please don't project your ignorance and confusion on others. It is arrogant.

To be more precise, the article defines detox as: "the idea that you can flush
your system of impurities and leave your organs squeaky clean and raring to
go", and further adds that this "is a scam." It then goes into details. You
say you are uninformed on the topic, yet refuse to accept the article's own
definition. Then at the end your comment implies that neither the author of
the article nor I have "actual knowledge" on the topic.

Excretion is what your body does. It excretes dead cells, it excretes urea, it
excretes CO2, it excretes all sorts of other waste products that it creates
itself, as well as those that enter the body, like cellulose and alcohol.

If you want to expand the definition of detoxification to include breathing,
taking a leak or a dump, throwing up, etc. then what term do you use for the
products and methods that the detox industry, practitioners, and advocates
use? You see that distinction in the article: “there are two types of detox:
one is respectable and the other isn’t.” You don't have one. Instead, that
expanded definition only really helps to confuse the issue.

You observe "If you were putting toxins (of any definition) into your body,
slightly faster than your liver/skin/lungs could remove them, they would
slowly build up." .. That is absolutely true.

If you are exposed to carbon monoxide then removing yourself (or since you've
probably falling unconscious, being moved) to some place without CO will help
your body recover, and being given O2 can help.

It's also irrelevant. You are granting the premise of the detox industry by
assuming there is a build-up of toxins in the first place! It's not a "of any
definition", it's that they can't list the toxins and show that the treatment
leads to a decrease in those levels and has a positive health outcome.

The OP wrote "fasting is probably the most effective way" to detox. That's
wrong. The most effective way to lower your levels of X, for a wide range of
X, is to stop being exposed to X. If you have a build-up of tar in your lungs
from smoking, then fasting will do diddly-squat.

And the same applies to all sorts of things that _aren 't_ toxins, like
allergens, or sunlight (which can cause a sunburn) or flashing lights (which
may trigger a seizure) or open spaces (which may cause a panic attack).

~~~
sopooneo
I post questions, born of ignorance, that I wish to be corrected or informed
about. Most of what I know, I've learned by this method.

If I come across as supporting the detox industry, I apologize, as I didn't
mean to. I don't. The article merely brought up other thoughts that I hoped to
learn more about.

~~~
dalke
No, you didn't come across as supporting the detox industry. You came across
as arrogant or lazy. Your own willful ignorance does not give you superior
claim to reject the statements of others; which is what you did.

------
webnrrd2k
I agree with the article, except it's missing another type of useful detox --
chelation therapy. It's generally used with heavy metal poisoning.

I have a friend who ate way too much sushi and had seriously elevated mercury
levels. Eventually her body cleared the mercury out on it's own, but I believe
she went through a initial round of mild chelation therapy.

~~~
dalke
Chelation therapy has only been shown effective for acute and higher exposure
poisoning. Chelating agents have serious side effects. For low exposures the
best solution is to avoid or remove the source of the exposure.

Quoting from
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3846980/](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3846980/)
(italics mine):

> _Chelation treatment of asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic patients is
> unlikely to benefit patients and may actually cause harm_ , as discussed
> elsewhere in this publication. Patients seek clear cause–effect
> relationships for their “poisoning,” but it is not always possible to
> determine the cause of symptoms. Physicians should seek a thorough diagnosis
> in spite of the pressure to find a simple environmental culprit. Internet
> advertising by marketers of “toxic testings” have made testing and treatment
> popular in some alternative medicine practices and has encouraged some
> people with health problems to seek these treatments. However, it is not
> possible to remove all “toxins” from the body, and treatments remove
> essential elements as well. Furthermore, _the efficacy of chelation
> treatment has not been generally demonstrated for all but severe recent
> acute exposures to a few metals_. In addition to concerns about short-term
> adverse impacts that may result from chelation, public health practitioners
> are also concerned about the potential subtle and latent effects that have
> not been characterized.

> In responding to citizen’s requests for information, public health officials
> are often confronted by extremely emotional appeals to solve personal health
> problems. Commercial laboratory marketings “toxin testing” offer hope that
> there is another treatment option. They also appear to prey on the guilt of
> caregivers, suggesting that not every treatment option has been tried until
> chelation products are used. However, no assessment of the true risks and
> benefits of chelation treatments are being provided.

~~~
webnrrd2k
Thanks for the clarification. I learned about chelation therapy in a chemistry
class, many years ago, and didn't know a lot about it's actual use.

------
ChrisGranger
I wish quacks like Dr. Oz would stop promoting this 'detox' fantasy.

~~~
bequanna
This is mentioned in the article as well, but I believe the real issue is the
automatic credibility given to people that possess credentials.

Many people seem perfectly happy to put their health and life in the hands of
a medical professional and do a minimal amount of work/research for
themselves.

For example, given the popularity of the below drugs, few seem to ask:

'Do I really need to kill my liver cells to lower my cholesterol?' (statins)

'If we don't know how these antidepressants work, and some studies show they
don't work, why am I taking them?'

~~~
meepmorp
> 'Do I really need to kill my liver cells to lower my cholesterol?' (statins)

A small number of people taking statin drugs (<1% for atorvastatin, the most
popular drug in the class) experience abnormal liver enzyme levels, and the
drugs are contraindicated in the case that a patient has existing liver
disease. But that's hardly destroying one's liver cells in the majority of
people.

~~~
bequanna
Maybe I should have been more general:

'Why am I taking {drug} for {condition} with [serious possible side effects]
when I could simply change my diet and activity level?'

MOST of the health issues we are prescribing drugs for are treatable/curable
with lifestyle changes.

------
kolev
Sweating detoxifies (far infrared saunas being best). Cilantro, chlorella and
activated charcoal are natural chlelation agents.

~~~
dalke
As the article points out, when pressed, advocates can rarely specify which
toxins are removed, or point to studies which demonstrate effectiveness in
humans.

Take cilantro for example. Quoting from
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3654245/](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3654245/)
:

> (iv) Cilantro (leaves of Coriandrum sativum), a popular culinary and
> medicinal herb, gained attention when a soup was reported to enhance mercury
> excretion following dental amalgam removal and remains popular despite
> limited evidence [46]. In animals, it decreased lead absorption into bone
> and inhibition of the delta-aminolevulinic acid dehydratase (ALAD) enzyme
> [47]. Less encouragingly, in a recent trial in 3- to 7-year old children
> exposed to lead, a cilantro extract was as effective as placebo in
> increasing renal excretion (improvements across treatment and placebo groups
> were ascribed to improved diet during the intervention) [48].

See the "limited evidence" and "as effective as placebo"?

The same review article points to
[https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jts/36/1/36_1_121/_arti...](https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jts/36/1/36_1_121/_article)
concerning chlorella and methyl mercury. (That paper in turn cites other
several animal studies for cadmium, lead, and dioxins.)

If you read that paper, you'll see it was dosed at 4 mg Hg/kg body weight,
which is rather acute, and measured across 6 mice. The results can't simply be
extrapolated to humans.

So, where is your evidence which shows that cilantro and chlorella are
effective chelation agents for humans?

