• musclemecca bodybuilding forums does not sell or endorse any bodybuilding gear, products or supplements.
    Musclemecca has no affiliation with advertisers; they simply purchase advertising space here. If you have questions go to their site and ask them directly.
    Advertisers are responsible for the content in their forums.
    DO NOT SELL ILLEGAL PRODUCTS ON OUR FORUM

Help with cleansing system

wrestling lyon

wrestling lyon

Well-known member
Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2008
Messages
366
Points
16
So I need to detoxify my body of thc (weed) and dont have cash to go down and throw on some $50-100 product that may or may not actually detoxify my body. I know that exercise, lots of fluid (and thus more sweating and urination) will help to cleanse my system faster, but do you know any cheap supp I can take to help with cleansing my system?
my roommate told me to take niacin, which I looked up and found was a B3 viatim. what is the legitimacy of this as a way to cleanse my system of thc and what negative side effects should I expect?

thanks for any help you can give, I know I've been dormant on here for quite a while
 
tim290280

tim290280

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
9,163
Points
38
Cleanses are a massive scam. Take a look at the ingredients and you'll see that most are just a mineral supplement.

The real trick is to clean up your diet and drink water. Oh and the amounts of water recommended "to flush the toxins" is actually about the amount of water a normal person should be drinking daily anyway.
 
T

tavuthekid

Well-known member
Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2008
Messages
133
Points
16
the niacin doesnnt have any side effects.all the b commplex helps with energy management in the body.it cant do anything to you except some changes in the colour of the urine.except that it only has to do with quantities of niacin.little bit more than the daily value is enough,in my opinion
 
M

mvsf1

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Messages
6,430
Points
38
Water, exercice, healthy diet. If you are young, you are going to "recover" faster.

Good luck.
 
BigBen

BigBen

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 11, 2006
Messages
5,110
Points
38
If you are trying to detoxify your system you might try to avoid putting additional toxins in your body.

I would try to stick with as many raw fruits and vegetables as i could. I would avoid meats bc of the processing involved, the hormones and anti-biotics are just factors your immune system has to deal with that are better off not in your system. Avoid fast food, avoid obvious sources of processed foods. All processed foods are treated with chemicals that are toxic in the human body and must be dealt with by the body accordingly. Stop putting this stress on the body and eat a cleaner diet and your body has less toxins to deal with, your detox will progress quicker.

As far as niacin is concerned do not be one of those guys that goes out and takes like 30 niacin pills and goes into shock bc they drop their blood pressure to low. The best way to detox your body is to stop, as much as possible, puttin toxins in your body. The human body is great at what it does, allow it to work as it is suppose to. The best way to speed up a detox is to imit the amount of toxins you are putting into your body. The things i have mentioned are easy ways to avoid some of the most common sources of toxins in the SAD (standard american diet) Drink water but nothing above and beyond what you need. And most importantly dont put yourself into another situation like you are in now.
 
Big04pimpin

Big04pimpin

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Nov 28, 2006
Messages
1,743
Points
38
Are you looking to pass a drug test? That is totally different then just "detoxing" your body.
 
tim290280

tim290280

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
9,163
Points
38
If you are trying to detoxify your system you might try to avoid putting additional toxins in your body.

I would try to stick with as many raw fruits and vegetables as i could. I would avoid meats bc of the processing involved, the hormones and anti-biotics are just factors your immune system has to deal with that are better off not in your system. Avoid fast food, avoid obvious sources of processed foods. All processed foods are treated with chemicals that are toxic in the human body and must be dealt with by the body accordingly. Stop putting this stress on the body and eat a cleaner diet and your body has less toxins to deal with, your detox will progress quicker.

As far as niacin is concerned do not be one of those guys that goes out and takes like 30 niacin pills and goes into shock bc they drop their blood pressure to low. The best way to detox your body is to stop, as much as possible, puttin toxins in your body. The human body is great at what it does, allow it to work as it is suppose to. The best way to speed up a detox is to imit the amount of toxins you are putting into your body. The things i have mentioned are easy ways to avoid some of the most common sources of toxins in the SAD (standard american diet) Drink water but nothing above and beyond what you need. And most importantly dont put yourself into another situation like you are in now.

While the USA has a higher residue risk than other areas that use hormones (UK, Europe, etc, but some countries like Australia don't use them at all), the actual "risk" is negligible. There is scant evidence of any actual cause for concern, and what little concern there is quickly dissolves in the face of cooking. Personally I'd be more concerned about your water supply.
http://journals.cambridge.org/actio...112&jid=NRR&volumeId=15&issueId=02&aid=635100

Antibiotics are of little concern as long as you are cooking meat or drinking pasteurised milk (which will kill the bacteria and break down the small levels of antibiotics that make it into the milk supply). People talk about milk being contaminated with antibiotics, now I'm not familiar with the USA regulations, but the reason for antibiotics use in milking cows is usually for infections. Infections are usually the teats of cows, but regardless the cows are quarantined from production during milking until the infection clears. So what little antibiotics that would be getting into the milk supply would be broken down in processing (especially the way the USA processes it's milk, "2%" milk is reconstituted from skim milk powder, unlike other parts of the world).

I agree with limiting processed foods, as preservatives and other additives are not tolerated by a large section of society (and may be a cause of the modern rise in allergies). Added to that processed foods are made to taste good using higher fat, sugar or salt contents than you typically need.

As I stated earlier "detoxes" are hoaxes. All they are is eating a healthy diet and drinking water, fucking magic :bitelip:
 
BigBen

BigBen

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 11, 2006
Messages
5,110
Points
38
While the USA has a higher residue risk than other areas that use hormones (UK, Europe, etc, but some countries like Australia don't use them at all), the actual "risk" is negligible. There is scant evidence of any actual cause for concern, and what little concern there is quickly dissolves in the face of cooking. Personally I'd be more concerned about your water supply.
http://journals.cambridge.org/actio...112&jid=NRR&volumeId=15&issueId=02&aid=635100

Antibiotics are of little concern as long as you are cooking meat or drinking pasteurised milk (which will kill the bacteria and break down the small levels of antibiotics that make it into the milk supply). People talk about milk being contaminated with antibiotics, now I'm not familiar with the USA regulations, but the reason for antibiotics use in milking cows is usually for infections. Infections are usually the teats of cows, but regardless the cows are quarantined from production during milking until the infection clears. So what little antibiotics that would be getting into the milk supply would be broken down in processing (especially the way the USA processes it's milk, "2%" milk is reconstituted from skim milk powder, unlike other parts of the world).

The recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH), a genetically engineered hormone manufactured by Monsanto, has sparked a controversy nationwide since its introduction to the marketplace a couple of years ago. Sometimes referred to as Bovine Somatotropin (rBST), the bioengineered hormone is injected in the cows every other week to force the cows to produce more milk than their bodies normally would. rBGH is similar, although not identical, to a hormone that the cow naturally produces. Increasing levels of this hormone boosts milk production, causing a number of problems with the milk, among them, raising levels of pus, antibiotics residues and a cancer-accelerating hormone called IGF-1.

Pus

Whenever cows are forced to produce more milk, they become more susceptible to udder infections called mastitis. Mastitis is a condition which can increase the amount of cow’s pus which ends up in the milk. Monsanto's own data shows that there is a 79% increase in mastitis (udder infections) and a resulting 19% increase in somatic cell counts (pus & bacteria in the milk). In fact, the warning label on Monsanto’s Posilac drug (their brand name for rBGH) explicitly states: "Cows injected with POSILAC are at an increased risk for clinical mastitis (visibly abnormal milk). The number of cows affected with clinical mastitis and the number of cases per cow may increase.... In some herds, use of POSILAC has been associated with increases in somatic cell counts [pus & bacteria]." The warning label goes on to say "use of POSILAC may result in an increase in digestive disorders such as indigestion, bloat, and diarrhea.... Studies indicated that cows injected with POSILAC had increased numbers of enlarged hocks and lesions (e.g., lacerations, enlargements, calluses) of the knee...and...of the foot region."

Antibiotics

Mastitis is treated with antibiotics, increasing the antibiotics residues which are present in milk fed to consumers. Proponents of rBGH insist that milk is one of the most heavily regulated foods with regards to antibiotics. They claim that antibiotic residues in the milk couldn’t possibly reach the consumer because each tanker of milk is tested and would have to be thrown out if antibiotic residues were found. They explain that every time a milk truck makes a pickup, the farmer’s milk is tested. A farmer guilty of providing contaminated milk would be charged for an entire tanker, therefore it would not be economical for a farmer to sell such milk.

In fact, only 4 out of 82 commercially used antibiotics are commonly tested for. In addition to the fact that so few of these are tested for, other antibiotics that are not legal for use end up in our milk. The Wall Street Journal (Dec. 1989) did a study of the antibiotic residues in milk on the market and found that 20% of the milk had illegal antibiotics present. This number was confirmed in a May 1992 Consumers Reports study while the Center for Science in the Public Interest found 38% of the milk to be adulterated with illegal antibiotics.

The economic incentives, rather than preventing antibiotics from reaching the consumer, seem to encourage farmers to use antibiotics which they know won’t be tested for.

Cancer

The presence of rBGH in the cow's blood stimulates production of another hormone, called Insulin-Like Growth Factor-1, or IGF-1. It is IGF-1 that is directly responsible for increasing milk production. rBGH use raises IGF-1 levels significantly (about five times as much, according to Monsanto studies).

IGF-1 is a naturally-occurring hormone found in the milk of both cows and humans. It affects cell growth and is responsible for the quick growth of infants in both species. This is why it is biologically present in mother's milk, since it is meant to be consumed by infants. While the IGF-1 hormone already exists in humans, it is usually bound to protein and thus has less of an effect than unbound IGF-1 in milk.

When cow's milk is consumed by human non-infants, it behaves as a cancer-accelerator. IGF-1 is not destroyed in the pasteurization process nor during human digestion and is therefore biologically active in humans, being associated with breast, prostate, and colon cancers.

IGF-1 promotes cell division. As cells divide, at some point they are instructed (by their genes, in combination with hormone signals) to stop dividing or they are instructed to die so that the creation of new cells is matched by the death of cells and no net growth occurs; this is called "programmed cell death." If "programmed cell death" is prevented, then cells don't die at the right time, causing out-of-control growth of cells, which is another way of saying cancer. Cancer is uncontrolled cell division.





Evidence is related supporting the hypothesis that heat-denatured bovine immunoglobulin (BGG) may be a major risk factor in the pathogenesis of atherosclerosis; it is shown that not only does the consumption of denatured BGG correlate at all three major epidemiological levels--historical, international and social class--but this highly reactive and invasive molecule also seems to possess the biological and/or pathological properties from which could evolve the main pathological changes found not only in atherosclerosis but also in some of its complications.Atherosclerosis. 1986 Mar;59(3):347-51.
Denatured bovine immunoglobulin pathogenic in atherosclerosis.

Annand JC


"Analysis of cooked meat muscles for heterocyclic amine carcinogen" Mutation research, 12 May 1997, Vol 376 (1-2), pp.129-134
The study concluded that cooking meat makes it carcinogenic.

"Carcinogens in foods: heterocyclic amines and cancer and heart disease," Adv Exp Med Biol, 1995, Vol. 369, PP. 211-220.
A number of heterocyclic amines(HCAs) indentified in beef, pork, poultry and fish result from their cooking. These compounds are formed during the normal cooking process y the reaction of creatine with various other amino acids.

"Health risks of heterocyclic amines," Mutation Research. 12 May 1997, Vol. 376 (1-2), PP. 535-540.
The study found, "COmmon cooking proceedures such as broiling, frying, barbequing, heat processing and pyrolysis of protein rich foods- induced the formation of potent mutagenic and carcinogenic heterocyclic amines. The cooked proteins produced oragn tumors in mice and rats, as well as in other non human primates.

I can go on like this. I have literature and 1000's of studies that show the same thing about cooked meat, cooked foods and their negative effects and possible negative effects on human health.
 
tim290280

tim290280

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
9,163
Points
38
^^ I think you should read the review I linked to.

Plus I addressed a lot of these points in my summary. Cows that have infections are required to be quarantined, in the USA this means a little Mexican will test each cow prior to applying milking cups. The entire "Pus in Milk" thing is actually a PETA and vegan campaign based on some manipulation of research.

I do agree though that the USA use of rBGH is just crap. No other country allows it. Should be banned. But the actual risks of food contamination are minimal. Once again, you get more xanoestrogens from your water.

I also agree that antibiotics are a concern. I understand why they are used, and it comes back to people not paying enough for food. The reality is though that antibiotics are overused, especially in the USA, and we are quickly getting resistance to them. I am a bit flumoxed at this though:
In fact, only 4 out of 82 commercially used antibiotics are commonly tested for. In addition to the fact that so few of these are tested for, other antibiotics that are not legal for use end up in our milk. The Wall Street Journal (Dec. 1989) did a study of the antibiotic residues in milk on the market and found that 20% of the milk had illegal antibiotics present. This number was confirmed in a May 1992 Consumers Reports study while the Center for Science in the Public Interest found 38% of the milk to be adulterated with illegal antibiotics.
I'm sorry but that is research that is 20 years out of date. The regulations and testing have been changed several times since then. Plus cowboys would have been driven out of the industry. I hate this assumption that there hasn't been any advancements in agriculture in the past 20yrs.
 
BigBen

BigBen

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 11, 2006
Messages
5,110
Points
38
^^ I think you should read the review I linked to.

Plus I addressed a lot of these points in my summary. Cows that have infections are required to be quarantined, in the USA this means a little Mexican will test each cow prior to applying milking cups. The entire "Pus in Milk" thing is actually a PETA and vegan campaign based on some manipulation of research.

I do agree though that the USA use of rBGH is just crap. No other country allows it. Should be banned. But the actual risks of food contamination are minimal. Once again, you get more xanoestrogens from your water.

I also agree that antibiotics are a concern. I understand why they are used, and it comes back to people not paying enough for food. The reality is though that antibiotics are overused, especially in the USA, and we are quickly getting resistance to them. I am a bit flumoxed at this though:

I'm sorry but that is research that is 20 years out of date. The regulations and testing have been changed several times since then. Plus cowboys would have been driven out of the industry. I hate this assumption that there hasn't been any advancements in agriculture in the past 20yrs.
The last portion was just part of the article. I did not want to alter it in any way so it was pasted with the rest of the article.


I just read the introduction of the review you posted. In the first sentence of the introduction their is already an opinion formed about beef in favor of the beef. Already, I question the objectiveness of this review of studies.

"Beef is an important component of the meat eating human consumer."

Beef is an important component- why is it considered important with all the other animal proteins with a complete amino acid profiles available?

of the meat eating human consumer- This sentence addresses the subjects, humans (test subjects), as meat eating consumers. How am i suppose to believe this study is objective when their is already an obvious agenda present? Do you think this study might have been influenced by the beef industry?

Business is ruining the "objectiveness" of science by influencing test results or only reporting the test results that show a point of view that will benefit their business agenda.

Why can two different companies with two different agendas manipulate studies and get two different results both giving "objective" scientific knowledge about the same topic? If the knowledge was objective the debate around the issue should not exist b/c the data received objectively would be no different from one group of scientists to the next, that is what makes scientific data objective is it not? The ability of the test results to be reproduced no matter who performs the testing as long as it is performed according to the method stated.


The conclusion of the review:

In conclusion, it is apparent that the subject of hormone growth promoters in meat is complex with deficiencies in knowledge of biology and chemistry, differences in interpretation of conventional toxicological evaluation and concerns for human health and implications for trade, contributing to the absence of a sociological consensus for consumers internationally.

Which furthers my point about the "objectiveness" of science due to the influence of business influencing the studies, university or otherwise. It also screams loudly to get the attention of my skepticism to believe the opinion of a person who has something to gain, in this case something monetary.
 

MuscleMecca Crew

Mecca Staff
tim290280

tim290280

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
9,163
Points
38
The last portion was just part of the article. I did not want to alter it in any way so it was pasted with the rest of the article.


I just read the introduction of the review you posted. In the first sentence of the introduction their is already an opinion formed about beef in favor of the beef. Already, I question the objectiveness of this review of studies.

"Beef is an important component of the meat eating human consumer."

Beef is an important component- why is it considered important with all the other animal proteins with a complete amino acid profiles available?

of the meat eating human consumer- This sentence addresses the subjects, humans (test subjects), as meat eating consumers. How am i suppose to believe this study is objective when their is already an obvious agenda present? Do you think this study might have been influenced by the beef industry?

Business is ruining the "objectiveness" of science by influencing test results or only reporting the test results that show a point of view that will benefit their business agenda.

Why can two different companies with two different agendas manipulate studies and get two different results both giving "objective" scientific knowledge about the same topic? If the knowledge was objective the debate around the issue should not exist b/c the data received objectively would be no different from one group of scientists to the next, that is what makes scientific data objective is it not? The ability of the test results to be reproduced no matter who performs the testing as long as it is performed according to the method stated.


The conclusion of the review:

In conclusion, it is apparent that the subject of hormone growth promoters in meat is complex with deficiencies in knowledge of biology and chemistry, differences in interpretation of conventional toxicological evaluation and concerns for human health and implications for trade, contributing to the absence of a sociological consensus for consumers internationally.

Which furthers my point about the "objectiveness" of science due to the influence of business influencing the studies, university or otherwise. It also screams loudly to get the attention of my skepticism to believe the opinion of a person who has something to gain, in this case something monetary.
*sigh*

I understand where you are coming from Ben, but you also have to understand that there is also a disconnect between agricultural production/science and the larger society. As a result a lot of what is researched and understood is often ignored in the wider public. This is what the final sentences of the review were trying to cover.

As to paper bias, it is one of the few papers I have seen that actually addresses animal production without heavy bias. Industry agricultural research is usually done on specific products (i.e. if it was specifically referencing only trials of antibiotics or similar I'd be concerned, but this isn't the case). Most agricultural research is performed by private or public organisations using industry levies for funding or clearly stated monies. This is independant research and is as good as it gets (short of identifying individual shitty researchers). Why do I then say this is one of the few? Because of PETA and vegan campaigns. I have seen a lot of bullshit research and claims (which you have inadvertently cited/quoted) that are just plain fraudulant.

A great example is one we have already discussed: Pus in Milk. This has come from the PETA and Vegan campaign to insinuate that milk is full of it. They cite the research you showed increasing infections. What they fail to acknowledge is that THOSE COWS WITH INFECTIONS ARE NOT MILKED FOR PRODUCTION. In fact most setups I have seen actually have a seperate auto-milker unit that is specifically just for the handfull of infected cows, so that not even the equipment can become contaminated, let alone the milk.

This is flat out fraud and misdirection. I strongly urge you to read the agricultural production journals rather than the agenda ridden publications or the fringe journals (organics has gotten a run in these due to a lack of logical comparison).
 
BigBen

BigBen

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 11, 2006
Messages
5,110
Points
38
How can you ignore the obvious bias that is present in the introduction? How can you you look at the study and not wonder if only facts were chosen to support people who eat meat/beef? It is painfull clear their is an agenda in the review when the introduction itself is opinionated in favor of one side of the argument. Have you read the China study? It is another great book written by an PHD that has the same opinion of meat. Did you look at any of the studies I posted about the reactions of animal proteins creatine and the formation of strong cancer causing agents being formed when they are heated?
 
tim290280

tim290280

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
9,163
Points
38
^^ The China Study........ We've had this discussion before. That study was a load of shit.
 
BigBen

BigBen

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 11, 2006
Messages
5,110
Points
38
^^ The China Study........ We've had this discussion before. That study was a load of shit.

How is that? I will need specific referances and why the book is shit. Why are u ignoring the studuies i posted abou the creation of cancer casuing agents in cooked proteins?

If you think the agricultural industry is not influenced by money and outside sources just like politics are influenced by special inerest groups, then your are looking at the issue with closed eyes. Agricultural industry set the guidlines for recommended allowences of their own products do you seriously think that a bussiness is not going to favor their own product. The review you posted is a biased review from its introduction. Why do you think sugar is still on the food pyramid, it sure is not b/c of the effects sugar has on the body. Business is the only reason your side of the argument even exists.

Look at the epidemiological studies that discuss eating cooked meat with regards to cancer and disease rates of those populations they are ALWAYS higher in populations that eat more meat than in those populations that do not. If meat does not influence disease then remove all vegetation form your diet and let meat have its influence on your pyhsiology. If meat is decedant in that situation why is it not decedant in general? It is b/c of the influence vegetaion has on your physiology that meat does not degenerate human healh faster than it already does. Plant foods prevent some of the disease process that accompanies cooked animal proteins.
 
tim290280

tim290280

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
9,163
Points
38
^^ I've not got time at the moment to address individual points, but Ben you know that I work in this field of research and while America is different from Australia I can see minuta and propaganda. I agree that Monsanto is a bit dodgy, but then again you could say the same thing about every single company on the face of the planet that has a new product.

I also can't tolerate this idea that meat causes cancer for a few reasons. First of all, most studies that link meat to cancer in a socialogical viewpoint are not causal relationships, and could be stated as coincidence (carrots would come up too if they looked at them). The other thing is that the reason we cook our food is to stop a more imminent threat from disease, bacteria and paristites. So to say that cooking changes a food (well duh!) and may cause issues with cancer is just one of the many trade-offs. Besides the fact that once again these "cancer from cooked meat" studies are once again not cause and effect relationships. Take a look at any western society compared to poorer nations (i.e. the ones that eat meat), first thing you notice is that the poorer nations live shorter lives, die of preventable diseases and are exposed to less chemicals (shampoo through to pharmaceuticals). This means most of these populations are not going to have cancers develop at the same rate as their longer lived counterparts in the west. To then say that meat is the cause of cancer in the west is just plain stupid.
 
BigBen

BigBen

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 11, 2006
Messages
5,110
Points
38
^^ I've not got time at the moment to address individual points, but Ben you know that I work in this field of research and while America is different from Australia I can see minuta and propaganda. I agree that Monsanto is a bit dodgy, but then again you could say the same thing about every single company on the face of the planet that has a new product.

I also can't tolerate this idea that meat causes cancer for a few reasons. First of all, most studies that link meat to cancer in a socialogical viewpoint are not causal relationships, and could be stated as coincidence (carrots would come up too if they looked at them). The other thing is that the reason we cook our food is to stop a more imminent threat from disease, bacteria and paristites. So to say that cooking changes a food (well duh!) and may cause issues with cancer is just one of the many trade-offs. Besides the fact that once again these "cancer from cooked meat" studies are once again not cause and effect relationships. Take a look at any western society compared to poorer nations (i.e. the ones that eat meat), first thing you notice is that the poorer nations live shorter lives, die of preventable diseases and are exposed to less chemicals (shampoo through to pharmaceuticals).

Dont you think that an extended life expectancy has a lot to do with the advances made in medical technology. Life expectancy does not seem to be a good tool to gauge the healthiness of the factors of our civilized diets. These other populations aren't dieing of degenerative diseases they die bc of infectious diseases. In most cases the water supply being the cause. Also just bc these do not eat meat does not mean they are on a healthy diet. The populations in most poor countries are abundant with nutrition deficiencies, and are exposed to disease at a higher rate than any person in a civilized nation.


This means most of these populations are not going to have cancers develop at the same rate as their longer lived counterparts in the west. To then say that meat is the cause of cancer in the west is just plain stupid.

I did not say meat was the cause of cancer in the west, that conclusion was reached by the reader. But the fact that most Americans eat way more meat than is necessary and do not eat vegetables probably contributes to my opinion that meat is a decadent to health. The only factors slowing meats negative effects on health are in fact the amounts of meat eaten and the amounts of vegetation eaten in comparison to how much meat is eaten in a given diet.

Meat, when cooked, definitely creates cancerous, mutagenic agents to be produced. Do they result in cancer in every instance? Probably not. Don't you agree it would be wise to limit known carcinogenic and mutagenic agents in the diet if health was the ultimate goal and to start making fresh fruits an vegetables and whole grains the staple of the diet and have meat sparingly. This point is the opinion I am trying to get across and nothing more.
 
tim290280

tim290280

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
9,163
Points
38
^^ I'll start by saying do you use shampoo? How about deoderant? Because congratulations you are taking in carcinogens.

I do agree that the western diet is very poor in terms of balance. I do agree that we need to eat more fruit and vegetables (it is usually the main comment I have about most diets posted here). I see that we are largely on the same page from your post, just I'm exposed to more of the industry (and the mind-numbing BS that gets thrown around). As such you can see why the spurious "cause and effect" relationships that are drawn from correlation studies can be annoying to someone in the industry (as the holes in the arguments are just so obvious).

I'd say that our daily exposure to toxins through the air, water and household chemicals is our main cause for concern. Add to that our general lack of activity (an hour a day is still 10-11hrs less that we have previously done in our evolution) and overconsumption and something has got to give.
 
BigBen

BigBen

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 11, 2006
Messages
5,110
Points
38
^^ I'll start by saying do you use shampoo? How about deoderant? Because congratulations you are taking in carcinogens.

I do agree that the western diet is very poor in terms of balance. I do agree that we need to eat more fruit and vegetables (it is usually the main comment I have about most diets posted here). I see that we are largely on the same page from your post, just I'm exposed to more of the industry (and the mind-numbing BS that gets thrown around). As such you can see why the spurious "cause and effect" relationships that are drawn from correlation studies can be annoying to someone in the industry (as the holes in the arguments are just so obvious).

I'd say that our daily exposure to toxins through the air, water and household chemicals is our main cause for concern. Add to that our general lack of activity (an hour a day is still 10-11hrs less that we have previously done in our evolution) and overconsumption and something has got to give.


:thumbsup2: I agree with this, absolutely. I have to add that antioxidant and phytonutrient intake seems all the more important.
 
PrinceVegeta

PrinceVegeta

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Apr 7, 2007
Messages
10,156
Points
38
where are the cliffnotes to this discussion? lol
 
Top