Isn't "Detox" Just Code For "Negative Side Effects?"

[VacMan]

Every time I hear something to the effect of:

"I got some significant detox symptoms today from my new <insert trendy diet here> like major mental fogginess, fatigue, irritation, stomach issues, emotional issues, etc."

It just boggles my mind.

...

Try not eating for a day or two.

You'll probably experience some of the same effects.

It's because your body does not like it. It's not "Detox."

If you ride your bike and accidentally fall off and get all bruised up and scratched. You didn't go through "Detox" symptoms of exercise.

You crashed your bike, and you damaged your body!

Also, if you are prescribed the wrong drugs and take them... you may go through some negative side effects... That could be very bad for your health.

But because we "know" about drugs and their side effects, we would stop taking them, and ask our doctor.

That's not the case with "trendy" diets.

Because if something "bad" happens, people just shrug them off and say "Ahhh, yaaa! Bring on the detox baby! I love me some of that sweet detox pain!"

I say wake up and be a little more critical.

I hear people saying all the time to "listen to your body."

Well... when you get significant "detox" symptoms. You SHOULD listen to your body, it's trying to tell you something.

I think "detox" is a word that has been altered purposefully by the alternative diet industry to rename "negative side effects."

It's classic persuasion and marketing.

And I think it has the potential to cause some serious problems.

So my point?

If it were ANYTHING else other than a new trendy diet. (Like if you ate some poison berries... or if you were allergic to something... or if you ate some moldy bread... or ANYTHING else that caused you discomfort...) You'd be critical of it, and you'd view it as something negative.

Please... when you start feeling like crap because you changed your diet, just be a little more conscious, and a bit more critical.

Sometimes feeling bad, means your body is telling you something.

I'm going to go hold my breath and see what kind of detox symptoms I get from that...

*INHALE*

[funchy]

While I agree the word is overused, what about when it actually does refer to the discomfort of an out-of-balance bodily system coming back into balance?

If you use heroin and then suddenly stop, you will feel sick because your body is so used to it, yes?

If you are a heavy alcoholic, the same is true when you suddenly quit drinking.

So if we can believe that some modern American foods also are unhealthy but have addictive qualities (eg. high doses caffiene), then wouldn't the word detox also apply?

[Cyllya]

To the title itself, yeah, that's true. But I'd say your bike analogy is off.

If I'm chubby and normally sedentary and I suddenly ride my bike five miles (without falling off), I'm going to be in pain. You could call it a negative side effect, but it's not an injury. The pain doesn't mean I shouldn't be exercising. If anything, it means I should be.

Up until recently, I drank caffeinated beverages all throughout the day. I decided I needed to quit, and it was unpleasant. I had major mental fogginess, fatigue, irritation, and emotional issues until I'd been caffeine-free for about a week. That doesn't indicate that caffeine was good for me and that I'm harming myself by not taking it.

I can't imagine going to my doctor and saying, "Excercise and a lack of soda pop are causing me negative side effects. Please prescribe something else."

But I totally agree with you about people saying "listen to your body." My body is telling me to stuff it with chicken McNuggets, French fries, soda, and fudge sundaes. I don't think I should listen to that.

[Brutha]

"I got some significant detox symptoms today from b]stopping smoking[/b] like major mental fogginess, fatigue, irritation, stomach issues, emotional issues, etc."

The thing that happens when you stop smoking get called detoxification in mainstream medicine.

Now some people in the altanative medicine community argue that the process of adopting an altanative diet is similar to stopping smoking and are therefore also using the word detoxification.

[VacMan]

I agree, the bike analogy I used is a bit off.

But so is the "Detox" analogy to new diets in many cases.

Drugs don't = foods.

But many people try really hard to compare them.

And... you CAN make a case for it. But in the case of actual "detox" symptoms of going from one diet to another... I think that's stretching it.

"Withdrawal" is not "Detox."

You go through withdrawal when you are addicted to a drug, and then you quit.

Nicotine, caffeine, heroin, alcohol, etc. all can exhibit those withdrawal symptoms.

You can also be "addicted" to things your body NEEDS and it's addicted for a good reason.

For example: Food, air, water...

If you go without those for any short period of time, you'll definitely feel "Withdrawal" or "Detox" symptoms.

I guess it's up to you to determine if they're positive or negative.

But keep in mind, if someone wants to sell you on a bogus idea... one of the best ways to "prove" it's working is to make you do something that has a recognizable "effect" even if it's negative.

So if someone came out with pills that should "detoxify" your system (and they're really only designed to make you vomit, and have explosive diarrhea) I bet you'd see a bunch of people collecting on Web 2.0 platforms and calling into "alternative talk shows" to tout how much they're feeling better after they exploded all their toxins out of both ends. After all... the explosion is the proof! Right?

Ahhhh, that feels so horribly nice.

[lifetimelearner]

DETOX-
the metabolic process by which toxins are changed into less toxic or more readily excretable substances.


sorry not buying your explanation

I do not believe in fad diets either
I believe in researching what is healthy with proof to back it up

such as Dr Mcdougall

[Brutha]

"Withdrawal" is not "Detox."

The modern name for treating getting people to quit drugs in clinical settings is detoxification.

For example: Food, air, water...

If you completely cut Food, Air or Water people will die.
With vegetarianism there are reports that those symptoms end after some time passed.

If you don't get water the symptoms get worse till you die.

The symptoms seem to have a similar curve than drug withdrawal symptoms and not the curve that water withdrawal produces.

sorry not buying your explanation

It's no explanation. It's simply a bunch of words that are used to talk about the phenomena.
If you want to talk about something you need words.

Drugs don't = foods.

How do you know?

[VacMan]

I don't think that just because symptoms of something go away after awhile that it means they are "good" for you.

For example.

If we run with the smoking/drinking concept.

When you START smoking, you'll probably feel like vomiting, and dizzy.

When you START drinking, you may get sick and vomit, pass out, etc.

These are negative side effects.

If you KEEP doing them, you will eventually build a resistance to them. And then you won't experience the same side effects.

That doesn't make drinking or smoking OK, now that you aren't experiencing the negative side effects. (perceptibly)

But if you are addicted and you stop doing them, then you'll get withdrawal symptoms.

So is it OK to get "detox" symptoms as a result of changing your diet?

And then when you go back to a "normal" diet, you get negative effects too? (But this time attribute them to the "bad" food you must be eating?)

It was "good" when you went through the "first" round of "detox" but when you go back to a "normal" diet, then THOSE negative effects are "bad."

Pretty interesting to me...

[Thomas H]

Originally Posted by VacMan

I agree, the bike analogy I used is a bit off.

You can also be "addicted" to things your body NEEDS and it's addicted for a good reason.

For example: Food, air, water...

Food, air, and water are very broad classifications, but I'll focus on food because that is the most misused.

What you refer to as food, I might say is not food. I can swallow pennies and eat paper, are they food?

I'll use the flesh of chicken as an example because I can see from your blog that you consider it food. I do not consider the flesh of a chicken as food. When you regularly eat a chicken's flesh, after abstaining from it from eating it's possible to experience detox. (or withdrawl symptoms if you prefer)

What your body needs, is not as simple a concept as you make it out to be. It's debatable. Eating things your body doesn't need (non-food) has potential for side effects, even if you call it food. Calling something food doesn't make it food.

Abstaining from non-foods can cause detoxification symptoms because you're used to eating non-foods. Similar to how a heroine addict detoxes from abstinence of heroine use.

[VacMan]

I do not consider the flesh of a chicken as food.

I would disagree.

Chicken flesh is food.

Try eating only chicken flesh. I'll bet you'll keep living as long as you can keep your calorie needs high enough.

What you refer to as food, I might say is not food. I can swallow pennies and eat paper, are they food?

Try only eating paper, or pennies...

I bet you'll soon no longer be of this world.

[carenkh]

With detoxing, or withdrawals, the effects are temporary, and you generally feel much better after the duration of the detox - you can feel your body working better. We know it's detox or hpicmpwk, if you feel better making a word up, because others before us have gone through it and report their experiences. Not that we can rely totally on that - we do have to be in touch with how we're feeling, energy levels, etc. But looking at someone else's experiences can provide benchmarks.

[Thomas H]

Originally Posted by VacMan

I would disagree.

Chicken flesh is food.

Try eating only chicken flesh. I'll bet you'll keep living as long as you can keep your calorie needs high enough.

Try only eating paper, or pennies...

I bet you'll soon no longer be of this world.

I'll keep living in both cases, but how long will it be until I start noticing the effects of eating either is the real question. Obviously I would notice the effects of the latter sooner than the former, but that doesn't mean there won't be effects of the former either.

That would be an interesting for someone who eats flesh to try. For a defined period of time, (min of 30 days) Eat only heated flesh, with no sides, spices, or other preparation tricks, with no drinks, getting all of your daily calories from it and see how you feel.

[funchy]

Originally Posted by VacMan

I agree, the bike analogy I used is a bit off.

But so is the "Detox" analogy to new diets in many cases.

Drugs don't = foods.

Why not? Alcohol is a food (beer & wine) and its addiction is so strong it kills some people. Coffee contains the drug caffeine. Food is full of compounds, and some do more than just give us calories or nutrition.

"Withdrawal" is not "Detox."

You go through withdrawal when you are addicted to a drug, and then you quit.

Here when people quit drugs, they go into a "detox program". That's just a different meaning of "detox". Maybe we're just debating semantics?

You can also be "addicted" to things your body NEEDS and it's addicted for a good reason.

For example: Food, air, water...

You cannot be addicted to air.

There is some debate on how addicting food can be. If food was never addicting, nobody would be overweight, would they? The diet industry is a multi-billion dollar industry, and people wouldn't need it if bad foods didn't have such a strong draw.

So if someone came out with pills that should "detoxify" your system I bet you'd see a bunch of people collecting on Web 2.0 platforms and calling into "alternative talk shows" to tout how much they're feeling better after they exploded all their toxins out of both ends. After all... the explosion is the proof! Right?

I think there has to be some shred of proof there is an underlying negative change the thing was causing to the body. When you remove that negative force, the body's adjustment period is de-toxification.

I personally am not convinced there are such things magical natural de-tox pills. For me to believe that's what they were, I'd need some proof they're more than laxatives. I'd like someone to explain the biological mechanism. But that's just my skeptical nature.

[Addict]

That would be an interesting for someone who eats flesh to try. For a defined period of time, (min of 30 days) Eat only heated flesh, with no sides, spices, or other preparation tricks, with no drinks, getting all of your daily calories from it and see how you feel.

oh, hi


The whole detox thing does piss me off sometimes. Sure, I believe that your body might go through detox for a few days if you make a drastic change in your diet. Here's what I don't get: Steve was 23 days into his juice feasting diet and he complains of "emotional detox"? Excuse me? 23 days later!?!!? And detoxing from what exactly? Raw veganism?

The other thing that really gets me is that when someone goes on a diet that they believe is beneficial all the negative side effects are classified as "detox", but when they go back on to their previous diet, it's "side effects" from going back on. That is simply believing in what you want to believe in. It's like attributing everything bad in your life to evil in the world and everything good to miracles. This is a dangerous mindset to have.

[carenkh]

Originally Posted by VacMan

So if someone came out with pills that should "detoxify" your system (and they're really only designed to make you vomit, and have explosive diarrhea) I bet you'd see a bunch of people collecting on Web 2.0 platforms and calling into "alternative talk shows" to tout how much they're feeling better after they exploded all their toxins out of both ends. After all... the explosion is the proof! Right?

It seems like you're assuming most people are stupid. I don't share that view. I imagine, should these pills be produced and promoted, people would buy them, and after a time, they would be reporting back: "I just vomited and had diarrhea, and I didn't feel any better afterwards!" Some people would take them and feel better, and they'd argue that the pills were miracles. MOST people wouldn't try them at all. Most smart people, anyway - because we don't do things without researching and questioning and gathering other peoples' experiences. It's like this tea I kept hearing about for a while - it's a miracle!! It changes lives!! But when I did the research, the only people who were saying that were the people who were selling it - I found no reliable research that the stuff had any measurable effect. So I found no compelling reason to try it.

I mean - people buy bigger dick pills from e-mails! You can sell anything to some people. That doesn't negate the true, reliable experiences of people who go on cleaner diets.

[VacMan]

Originally Posted by Addict

And detoxing from what exactly? Raw veganism?

The other thing that really gets me is that when someone goes on a diet that they believe is beneficial all the negative side effects are classified as "detox", but when they go back on to their previous diet, it's "side effects" from going back on. That is simply believing in what you want to believe in. It's like attributing everything bad in your life to evil in the world and everything good to miracles. This is a dangerous mindset to have.

I completely agree Addict.

This is pretty much the "heart" of what I'm trying to convey.

Thanks for helping clarify.

[Slamboard]

The trendy use/misuse of the word detox is news to me, I'm going to be on the lookout for this phenomenon.

I understand what the OP takes issue with. People should listen to what their bodies try to tell them. Last year I exposed a fraudulent diet guru who popularized the term SNATT (slightly nauseous all the time) and she assured people on her forum that this side effect was good. It let you know that the diet was working. She offered assurances that she dealt with this personally. It turns out that she was a liar who had never lost the 198 pounds that were the selling point of her diet plan. Logic would dictate that she was also lying about following the diet and enjoying the negative side effect.

If you have a side effect from a diet that doesn't feel good, that is by definition a negative side effect. You should consult a doctor and/or stop the diet.

[floslib]

I think the essence of what the OP is trying to get at is to be skeptical and critical of things that make amazing claims that you haven't verified for yourself. There are some things you can do over a long period of time that will cause a lot of harm to yourself, and it's not a good idea to put your well-being in other people's hands by denying when something potentially harmful is happening to you.

That said, I think he's carrying this too far, because it seems there are in fact credible studies that show, whether there are health benefits or not to eating vegetarian or vegan, it's not harmful to eat in that fashion as long as you do it properly. Of course, some alternative diets actually may be bad for you. None come to mind at the moment, but I remember cringing more than once after hearing about some things people are trying.

The point is, it's important to think critically about what you're doing, and if there are negative side effects, don't immediately dismiss them as detox. They may be just that, or they may be a sign that something is legitimately wrong, and you should try to determine which is actually the case instead of just thinking everything is okay. And don't just take one person's word for it, see what a lot of different people have to say about it before making your judgment call on it. If you only get one opinion, you could be misled, either intentionally or unintentionally.

[funchy]

Originally Posted by VacMan

I would disagree. Chicken flesh is food.

Try eating only chicken flesh. I'll bet you'll keep living as long as you can keep your calorie needs high enough.

Define "as long as you can".

Some people live on a diet of mostly red meat. "As long as they can" will be until the heart disease drops them dead one day. Arteriosclerosis is a scary thing. Statistics say that you don't die in an accident, you're extremely likely to die of heart disease or cancer, not old age. Both heart disease and cancer are strongly linked to a high meat diet.

Some people might live on a diet of a large amount of fish caught from a river near me, the Delaware River. These fish are massively contaminated with mercury, PCBs, and other crap dumped into the water. A person could feel very full and satisfied eating these fish each day... until the cancer or mercury poisoning caught up with them.

However, if a person is found to be very sick with mercury, he is treated ("detoxified") to remove as much of the toxin as possible
Chelation therapy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Try only eating paper, or pennies...

Or fast food which is very similar to paper?

Amazon.com: Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side of the All-American Meal: Eric Schlosser: Books

SuperSize Me

[VacMan]

Thanks Slamboard, floslib, and funchy,

Yes, basically I am saying: Why do we just dismiss all negative side effects from "trendy" or "healthy" diets as "detox?"

And at the same time, if something feels bad as a result of eating it, we usually will attribute that to something negative, right? Like if I ate some old mayo I might get sick. So I pinpoint it to the mayo. I don't call it "detox" and keep eating the bad mayo.

And furthermore, using the smoking example:

When someone starts smoking, they feel bad... "detox?"

Then they level out and feel fine... "healthy?"

And then when they stop smoking, they feel bad again... "detox?"

No, in those cases it would be "nicotine poison," "addiction," and "withdrawal."

Also, yes, some foods can be contaminated with heavy metals, pesticides, etc. But that has to do with the source and treatment of the food. It can easily happen with a raw vegan diet too. (pesticides)

Just use some common sense.

Not all healthy diets should make you feel bad.

That "feeling bad is good" concept does not make sense to me.

Oh and Slamboard, was that diet called Kimkins?

If so, thank you for doing that! I alerted my subscribers to that scam a few months back.

That is not a cool diet.

[Monique7nuns]

Detoxification says your body has toxins that are inhibiting the quality of one's health. When you eliminating them from your system (whether it's too fast or at a slower rate), herxheimer reactions occur and in the bigger scheme of things a much more natural approach to healing is happening.

Thus.. "negative side effects" is something you'd experience when taking bad prescription drugs.. hence the need for the big long disclaimers.

"Healing reactions" are what you'd experience when the body is efficiently detoxifying, and actually what so many mistake for illness and feel the need to take bad drugs for..

So look at it this way.. when you feel bad, it's actually good.

[VacMan]

Originally Posted by Monique7nuns

So look at it this way.. when you feel bad, it's actually good.

Monique7nuns, I respect your opinion, but I think it's blanket statements that are causing problems with the way people view "detox" or "negative" symptoms.

Feeling bad IS bad.

You should always look into it, and never accept it as something that's just "part of the diet."

Many people can sell you junk that will hurt you AND will make you feel bad.

Is that good?

Just because the phenomenon of "detox" can be real in SOME cases, it does not mean it's always true. And I would argue that healthy "detox" symptoms are the exception, and not the rule.

[GreenGuy]

VacMan, I thoroughly enjoyed your post. I'm totally onboard with eating healthy, non-processed, fresh foods but the fact that you would accept having headaches, dizziness, etc. as the result of a healthy diet just sets off some red flags to me. I found this from the Mayo Clinic's website:

Detox diets: Do they offer any health benefits? - MayoClinic.com

"Detoxification, or detox, diets are touted by many as a way to remove "toxins" from the body. This practice stems from the belief that the food you consume contains a range of harmful substances, which accumulate in your body, causing fatigue, headaches, nausea and even disease. But there's no evidence that this is true or that detox diets have any health benefits. Also, in some cases, detox diets can have harmful side effects.

Detox diets vary. But the basic premise is to temporarily give up certain foods that are thought to contain "toxins," such as meat, sugar, certain grains, dairy products and caffeine. Detox diets typically start with fasting followed by a strict diet of raw vegetables, fruit and fruit juices, and water. In addition, some detox diets advocate using herbal laxatives, antioxidants and colon cleansing (enemas) to help "clean" out the intestine and liver. The duration of such regimens often ranges from seven to 10 days.

Some people report they feel better, "lighter," and more focused and energetic during and after detox diets. This may be due to their belief that they are doing something good for their bodies. But it may also be due to eating little — if anything — for several days. Calorie restriction can lead to heightened feelings of psychological well-being.

There is no evidence, however, that detox diets actually remove toxins from the body. Most ingested toxins are efficiently and effectively removed by the kidneys and liver and excreted in urine and stool.

Early side effects of fasting include headaches. Prolonged fasting or severe calorie restriction can result in anemia, low blood sugar and irregular heartbeat. Before going on a fast or detox diet, talk to your doctor.

The best diet is one based on fruits and vegetables, whole grains, lean sources of protein and unsaturated fats. Add regular exercise and stress reduction techniques, and you have a solid foundation for good health."

[Datum]

I think it is very easy to end this argument. Ask someone who is on "proper" SAD diet to take blood test. Then contrast it to raw foodist (but someone who does it right). I can guarantee you that raw foodist will have much better results.