Talk:Detox diet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Toxins within Fruits and Vegetables

"it is known that fruits and vegetables actually contain more natural toxins than substances such as meat or fish" --User:67.102.158.90 Well known? I'd like to see some references or some actual data here.

Might I suggest you put up a {{Fact}} tag? To be fair, has it been proven that all these other foods contain more toxins than fruits and vegetables? Nope, but that is certainly taken for granted --Tyciol 09:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
It is a matter of semantics. Fruits and vegetables (usually) PRODUCE more toxins than animals, but they don't necessarily CONTAIN more toxins. Also keep in mind that in terms of detox diets, "toxins" generally refer to any harmful substances which are to be purged. These substances aren't all necessarily "toxins" by the strict definition of the word. --VeryGnawty 08:00, 31 January 2006
I'm a bit confused, if they produce them, wouldn't they be contained within the food? In evaluating toxic status, I think what is being asked for is proof that the 'toxic' things in certain maligned foods are more difficult to purge and more damaging than natural foods. Tyciol 05:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, plants do produce lots of toxins, and they are contained in the food. My point was that plants don't necessarily contain more toxins. Animals can also produce toxins (some animals even produce lethal toxins). Animals also contain toxins that have been ingested (often FROM plants). So saying that plants CONTAIN more toxins is fallacious, because it disregards animal diet and lifestyle, both of which have a huge impact on the amount of toxins in meat. VeryGnawty 01:45, 2 February 2006
Oy... there's me not reading again. For some reason I shifted meat and fish into grains and refined products or something like that... anyway, you do have a point in the diet of these animals being a factor in their toxin levels. Especially considering that the higher on the food chain you go, the presence of contaminants seems to be a lot higher (high mercury in big fish and so on). In fact, that would say to me that animals, being consumers of fruit and vegetables (or animals consuming them), would have to have higher levels.
Even so, critical of this, I offer one idea... we do have natural detox methods for clearing toxins from our foods. Animals have this too, so even if fruits and vegetables have toxic contaminants, the animal's digestive system could have cleaned them, leaving them solely with good clean meat to eat. Plants need to use toxins as a defence mechanism, but animals normally don't (with some poisonous exceptions to be exempted), instead relying on speed, claws, etc. to defend themselves. So perhaps we leave it as it is but add in an exemption for animals that are poisonous or higher in toxins (blowfish, snake... etc.) Tyciol 07:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
These are all just theories. I think someone is trying to revive the meat market. If fruits and vegetables contained toxins. Then what are those toxins. Provide proof that "x" and "y" toxins occur in "a" and "b" fruits. The only toxin or rather poison a fruits contains would be in the seed. But it is known fact that the cyanide in the seed does not affect us. Another this is methanol but it is proved that it metabolises differently in the body so it does not affect us. The only other toxins apart from that would be pesiticides that are sprayed on fruits. SO we cannot cite that as a negative thing because we can always go in for organic foods.

BTW speaking on the topic of "defense mechanice" of plants. It is true but humans long ago already knew that. That is why all pulses and cereals should be soaked for atleast two hours if not overnight before cooking. But nowadays nobody follows that. This deactivates the phytic acid. I never have problem with beans(gas problems) when prepared at home because in our house we soak beans overnight. But if i have it in a hotel I have problems it is obvious that they do not soak it in water and prefer adding some baking soda to it to help it cook faster. Detox diets has shown visible benifits. This seems to be like the research done by other "scientists" on vitamins. They proved that vitamins only gave you expensive pee. But real world has proved otherwise and many people have benifited from vitamin supplements over the years. There is another research that says that vitamins should be taken with meals or else they might not be absorbed by the body. But these "scientists" dont want to tell us that as they are funded by the pharma giants, who now realised that vitamins make people healthy and that is "bad for business". I am sure this research on detox also is some similiear disinformation being spread.

[edit] Gwaeraurond's Case in Regards to the nature of Toxins in Foods

Meat bought in a store, and if not certified organic, may contain added chemical preservatives. Fresh fruits and vegetables may also contain trace amounts of chemical pollution through the soil, acid rain and air quality (e.g. roadside berries absorb toxins from exhaust fumes). All of these factors contribute to the quality of the food, and certified organicfoods have air and water polution considerations unless grown in hydroponics. The argument for and against either is very difficult to address. My reason to choose fruits and vegatables over meats is content. Meat is mostly fat and protein, where fruits and vegetables have much more vitamin and antioxidant content. These, even including trace toxins, are simply better for detoxing because it includes nutrients good for a body going through detox.

A view I feel carries a lot of weight is the belief the way an animal lives and dies affects the quality of it's meat. Under this concept, if an animal is raised in cramped conditions and then dies in a very painful way (animal cruelty) then there would be a trace "energy" transferred into the person who eats it. Although this has no scientific value, because it is a concept applied by many who perform the detox diet (myself included), I feel it has value in the argument. On the opposite side of this theory, I once met an organic chicken farmer who believed that if the animal was raised with love, and killed with prayer and respect, the quality is actually better than in plants because of a positive transfer of energy. (see Reiki, and Metaphysics) although the same could be said singing to plants benefitting their food quality. Although energies have no scientific weight, what does is that when stressed, certain chemicals are released into the body which may not be good to have or to eat, while when happy the opposite occurs. Cows have been demonstrated to produce more milk when in a good mood, chickens lay [citation needed]healthier eggs, and in one study performed by Myth Busters, plants really do respond to emotional voices, be it anger or song, and from a phsychological point of view when we are happy we deal with our physical health better than when depressed, and obviously a healthy animal yields healthy meat. From this perspective then, one may conclude that the emotional state of what we eat directly relates to the amount of toxins found in the system, and in turn relates to how good or bad it may be to consume. However on that regard, more studies would need to be performed but the value of the belief in itself holds value in discussion simply because it accepted and practiced. Gwaeraurond 3-3-2006, 7:17PM EST

I had to edit what you said a little bit to make it easier for others to read (and for uncluttering the talk page a bit), hope you don't mind. Anyway, regarding the 'energy' concepts, that's largely a religious consideration probably already included in the vegetarianism article. This article is focused on the concept of detoxifying actual theoretical physical toxins in the body through a diet, not negative energy. If there's more than what's included in the vegetarianism article, you could do something on de...negafying your energy body or something like that. I heard the thing about stress hormones in animals in a yoga book, but I really don't think it has any scientific basis. The function of hormones is to trigger various gene responses, and these are slightly different species to species. If this were a concern, it would have a negative effect upon carnivores but this has not been observed, so it's different when digesting foods rather than injecting animal hormones directly. Tyciol 01:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
No problem. The same is essentially said. In regards to the energies? It isn't a matter of vegetarianism, because as I stated it is applied by both meat eaters and plant eaters. The reason I feel it fits here is because it is a motivating factor that drives certain people to prefer the detox diet. In my own case, I was more concerned about the vibrational imprint on the physical matter. But this isn't even a religious concept either because there are supported studies. Since this is an important matter, I did my research, and here is what I found:
How the Mood of Cows effects Milk Production: [1] [2]
How Mood of Chickens effects egg quality
According to these studies, stress directly relates to cholesterol levels. Obviously then a stressed animal has higher cholesterol than one that is happy. [3]
Stress effect on the immune system
In this study on stress, it shows how stress affects poor choice in food. If an animal is stress, it may be inclined to eat in a not so healthy way, and this would affect the quality of it's meat: [4] [5]
In this study, drumming was shown to increase the producting of cancer-killer cells, which relates to the physical effects methods of removing stress has on out bodies. [6]
I could not find any conclusive studies on stress chemicals on the value of the meat, but found how stress can relate to diet and biochemical levels which may affect the quality of a meat, drawing a clear line. Obviously. I will continue to research the matter on my available time, and post again later when I find something more specific. My assumption is that, just as in humans, stress chemicals are released into the meat and stored in the body. Eating the meat causes it to be absorbed into the system, and contributing the the toxic levels of the bodily tissue.
And since I made a scientific claim in regards to "energies" I did my research. I think a better way to apply the concept of energies would be the vibrational effect on the cells, or resonation. My assumption, which I will continue to research and post later, suggests that the state cells are in when an animal dies, when consumed, affects our systems in a similar way. If Sound can affect cells, than this claim can be supported. However, it is very difficult to research that information, but I do remember reading about a case study where amino acids were placed in conditions that would cause genetic Molecules to form, when exposed to classic music during those conditions, specific known human genome patterns would repeatedly form, which suggested that music, or vibrations, have a specific effect on genetics and cells. This would be an explanation for the study by Myth Busters where PLants responded to sound, even though they have no ears. And on that regard, since I did not recall the actual issue where that was demonstrated, I found these:
Braam, J. and R. W. Davis. 1990. Rain induced, wind-induced, and touch-induced expression of calmodulin and calmodulin-related genes in Arabidopsis. Cell 60: 357-367. [Talking Heads music at 60 db for 1 minute did not induce expression of touch-sensitive genes]
Daedalus. 1991. Green music. Nature 351: 104. [explains fancifully how music might be used as an herbicide, claims Charles Darwin played the bassoon for Mimosa pudica]
Davis, R. and P. Scott. 2000. Groovy plants; the influence of music on germinating seedlings and seedling growth. J. Exp. Bot. 51: 73. [sketchy abstract-only that concludes that music does make seedlings grow faster, but the response is quite species-specific]
Subramanian, S. et al. 1969. A study on the effect of music on the growth and yield of paddy. Madras Agr. J. 56: 510-516. (Paddy is indifferent to daily 30-minute exposures to recorded South Indian oboe music)
Weinberger, P. and M. Measures. 1979. Effects of the intensity of audible sound on the growth and development of Rideau winter wheat. Can. J. Bot. 57: 1036-1039. [a variety of sounds at 90 db had little effect, but plants subjected to 105-120 db showed reduced growth]
The effect music has on people and even plants
The basis of the study by Myth Busters was actually not so much about Music, but by emotional sounds. Singing to plants, talking nice to them, improved growth while yelling at them caused them to grow sickly. This also in support of my statement about energies. Sadly, It is very difficult to obtain information off your average search engine, as there is allot of junk to shift through (I sent over 2 hours gathering all this), but hopefully I will track down more specific sources shortly when I have the time. Although this all may seem a bit off-topic, I feel that understanding how foods can carry toxins, and what forms of toxins are in practice removed has a significant impact on choice of detox diet.
Gwaeraurond 3-5-2006, 1:20 PM EST
Did some formatting on that again (view changes to see improvements), and I'll read it now. This talk, along with your special Detox diet, are getting quite large. I would like to suggest we move part of them to your user page or in a subsection of your talk page, to make this more easily navigatable, or possibly host them on a website as then they could be listed as 'External links' Tyciol 06:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm sory, but I think I may have said something wrong. This is more about the nature of the toxins in foods under certain conditions, than a preference for one or another food. If it was about that, than I agree, it should have been placed in a Vegetarian discussion but that isn't the case. I feel that a good detox diet should condider what sort of toxins are in our foods, so we can choose what is best for our bodies. A Plant in poor conditions would be woorse than an Animal raised in Good conditions, and vice versa. A typo O followers of a Blood type diet, for example, who wants to detox, would obviously prefer to detox while still eating meats. Understanding how choice foods in a given food selection can contain toxins would help in making the proper choice.
This discussion has become large because it is very difficult for me to clearly get my point across, but I don't really have much else to say so there is no need to move it. Also note, that the links I provided are not the best. A few even seemed to go in the wrong direction, so when I find the right links, I will change the links above to reflect this.
Gwaeraurond 3-6-2006, 7:15 AM EST
Oh... okay so what you're trying to say is that on average, the way vegetables are treated are somewhat better than the way most meat is treated? That could definately be true, I just got distracted by all the energy and hormone stuff :p Tyciol 18:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

MythBusters is fun to watch but isn't great science AFAIK. I'd have to guess plants benefit from any sort of talking over no talking because this would result in exhaling air with a larger percentage of carbon dioxide in it near them. As to whether singing/praising helps versus yelling hurting, there are so many variables there - does the body exhale different percentages of gases in these ways, does the force of expelling air make a difference, what might the sound waves be doing, etc. Possibly an article about Talking to plants could be interesting, although without sources that would likely go straight to AFD. Шизомби 14:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Example of a specific detox diet rather than being inclusive of all detox diets

This seems to be a rather specific example of a detox diet. Would someone care to expand on this, reflecting the various uses of the term? Dforest 01:44, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

This doesn't seem like a detox diet at all, but more like an unhealthy starvation diet. I thought a detox diet was supposed to eliminate toxins and/or expose allergens. That means, no dairy, no sugar, no wheat, no booze, no dope, no chemical additives and weird ingredients that people didn't eat 200 years ago. There will be no Healthy Choice or Cup O' Noodles (blecch!) or anything in the supermarket marketed as "diet". There are different detox diets that target various organs (liver, intestines, lungs, stomach, etc.) SatanicYakuza 23:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
This is a definate good example, you guys should add stuff like that to the article. I made some changes to make it less specific but it definately needs a lot more work and while my interest in this is high, my knowledge of the various kinds sucks. --Tyciol 09:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gwaeraurond's Detox Diet!

Said article is not a Detox Diet, and the conclusions are assumptive. Although, yes, the body is more than capable of taking care of Toxins on it's own. Certain Organs and Fat do store up Toxins, some forms of Detox diets are specifically for releasing this build-up. The Form of Detox I personally use, is done once a month or so, and not really a lifestyle. My Detox Diet:

(Note: On each day, I take Garlic Oil for Blood-sugar balance, Noni to Reduce the Inflammation resulting from the lack of Food, Bilberry for it's known beneficial effects on capillaries, which will be needed while the extra toxins are released, and Milk Thistle and Dandelion Root to help detox the Liver deal with the released toxins)
  • Day 1: I Reduce my eating to lite Foods, Drinking Plenty of Spring Water. The Purpose of this day is to ease my way into day two, as it is unhealthy to make any sudden changes to diet.
  • Day 2: On this day, is Fasting. My only Intake is Water, and said supplements. Sometimes I will take another day or so of this, but my first time was only half a day becuase my body was not used to it.
  • Day 3: I do the same thing as day one. It is important not to make Sudden changes in Diet, but to gradually move into and out of change.

This Diet Follows the concept, as outlined in the article, that when blood-sugar is low Toxins are released from the body. The Purpose of the lite Foods is only to give the body a step-down to Fasting, for Health Reasons. Some of the Supplements are used to help the Body Cope with the Change, while the Specific Detox Herbs are Used to Detox the Organs that have to deal with the amount of Toxins released, so it does not simply settle back in.

This is my idea of a Detox diet. I don't believe that it is Good to live like this all the time though, because the body needs a wide varity of Nutrients. For this reason, when not detoxing, I eat many different foods and enjoy the health of Balanced living. It is a diet I made for myself due to my own lifestyle. Other people will find other methods of well being, because each body is different. -Gwaeraurond 1-8-2006, 11:57 PM EST

[edit] NPOV?

I've added a {{neutrality}} tag as this article seems far from neutral as it stands - mostly it's anti-detox, with unverified claims made. sheridan 17:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The article actually seems very pro-detox to me. The claims unverified seem more on the detox side. There's a wealth of information out there to be sourced, it's less an attack on detox than a request for a link to such information. I know this is very popular among health practice, drug recovery, yogis, vegans and all that, so I'd love to see it, and links to these sources. --Tyciol 09:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I look forward to future discussions which can resolve any disputes of neutrality. Once we get this plant vs meat toxin discussion up top settled, are there any other issues I can aid in resolving? Detox diets are very popular and I'd like to expand on this concept. I'm betting I could find some similar ideas in a vegan or yoga article or something. Also, I'm going to link to the warrior diet because it is an example of a diet that uses detox principals within it. I have also been experimenting with categories, and I think I can tie this in with other diets. Categorizing is a beautiful way to find connected information, much better than inter-links for other wikis and 'related topics' and so forth. In fact, once categorizaiton is fully utilized and understood on wikipedia, I predict 'related topics' will all disappear. Tyciol 07:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I rewrote the article in an attempt to make it more NPOV; and removed the tag. Must admit this was more by being vague than doing proper research and citation (badly needed!), but I think it's an improvement. I commented out a couple of statements I thought couldn't appear without citation, so "View Source" if you want to see. Tranzid 22:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I've looked over your rewrite and it seems to make sense. I admit, I had a horrible time following it, Wikipedia needs to fix that bug where adding a tag moves EVERYTHING down, making it totally impossible to figure out what else was changed in the process without analyzing every bite of it. Anyway, in regard to the stuff you commented out, I agree that as written the protests are indeed in violation of NPOV and stuff so it was good to comment them out. I still think they are getting just criticisms in some cases though, so perhaps I can try and represent them (I would have done them better in the first place had I authored em) in a method that is more conservatively worded. Perhaps a criticism section, sections make more sense. Tyciol 09:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Nice work :-) this article has definately improved. Tranzid 23:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree. It looks much better. But it does need something. Why not give mention to examples of a number of different forms? For example, you stated that Fruids and vegetables are usually preferred. In this example, you might write about what different forms of diets apply it and why, with remarks for and against. The best articles I have read are one that step aside, giving many views together in an informative way, allowing the reader to make their own choices. Articles that leave any "absolutes" are the only ones that are ever really critized, which can be observed in the previous form of this article where it was mostly "absolute" and so attracted allot of attention. However, articles that do not are always the most interesting to read. -Gwaeraurond 3-3-2006, 6:35PM EST

[edit] Definition of toxin

Having looked at the discussion above, it's clear that "toxin" is being used to mean anything from "physiologically injurious species of molecule" (the exact species not being specified, with the exception of a mention on the article page of mercury - and I'm not sure that fasting is the recommended best practice for mercury poisoning) to "bad karma" or similar. It'd be nice to know if there is a consensus of what is being talked about when the term is used, and what the reason is to think that restricting one's diet for a period should have an effect - whether it's based on empirical (and hopefully non-anecdotal) evidence or on theoretical principles, and what evidence there is in turn for those principles. Pseudomonas 15:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] elimination through metabolism

Critics point out that the human liver, kidneys, lungs and skin have evolved to adequately expel environmental contaminants and are perfectly equipped to continue to do so unassisted.

Generally, this is true, but not in all cases. There are substances which are known to accumulate in the body, e.g. fluoride and retinoids, etc. Whether these substances can be eliminated over time through diet regimens is disputable.--Dan Asad 06:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Herxheimer reaction

It is my understanding that Herxheimer reactions require a pathogen, and thus I see no relation to detox diets. I have removed unsourced references to them. Headwes 22:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Malaise

Quote: "if low blood sugar levels force the body to begin rapidly metabolising large amounts of fat, then these toxins will be released into the bloodstream. Symptoms often mentioned are headaches, sore muscles..." Has any evidence been published in a _real_ journal that release of 'toxins' accounts for the slightly-lousy-all-over feeling that accompanies the early stages of fasting or 'detox'? Notreallydavid 16:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits by User:99.244.49.244

I'm looking at the edits by this user, and some of it seems destructive. Compare now and before. In particular, the criticism section has had all its references removed, had most of the more serious criticisms removed (particularly, any mention of the body's natural mechanisms for dealing with toxins, and indeed any discussion of toxins whatsoever), and feels even more weasel-wordy than before. It feels as if someone's built a straw man in the criticism section. Some of the stuff added elsewhere seems beneficial to the article, so summarily reverting would be unreasonable, but I think a lot of what's been done to the criticism section should be undone, although I wouldn't want to do anything like this without some sort of community support. Opinions? James pic 10:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)