And what are the LD50's of those "toxins"? This is my first question to people who go on about "toxins" and "detox" and "cleansing".
I don't want an exact number, just a ballpark. Is it micrograms, milligrams or grams per kg body mass? Surely these people who know so very much about "toxins" must know the one fact that distinguishes the things we informally call toxic from the ones we don't.
It would be the hieght of intellectual dishonesty to claim something was "toxic" without having any knowledge of the LD50.
"Toxins" could be a poor word choice on my part. But our body can be slowed down with the modern food we eat, the poor environments we live in, and genetic predisposition. I think fasting is a way to remove road blocks in our body, for whatever reason they appeared.
But to be clear, I think a lifestyle of eating fruits and veggies is more effective than fasts, when trying to achieve this.
There are a lot of medical, yes scientific, benefits to fasting. At the end of the day, it helps the body out (strengthens immune system), among other ways, whereas it might be struggling with eating regularly. Also, most research would never encourage people to go without eating more than seven days, as that's starvation mode and the Hippocratic oath has some things to say about that.
Absolutely nothing you said supports the notion that toxins are looming in fat and losing fat releases them and makes you fell sick - which is exactly what you said. When questioned about this you just changed the subject to something completely different.
I'll ask again - Which specific toxins are stored in your fat? Its a simple question.
I don't have an answer for specific 'toxins', as the way I worded things is based on experience.
All I do know is that fasting has tremendous benefits to our bodies, which is based on science (most papers speak of 12 hours to three days; rarely longer). As for the granular details (answering the 'how' and 'why' questions), I'm not certain science has a definitive answer for that. My perspective is that, subjective.
Also, the tone of your comments are a bit harsh. If it's a simple question, well, cite the scientific papers that establish your point of view. Contraction point of views aren't constructive, what's your more scientifically established idea, as it relates to the benefits (or lack thereof) of fasting?
I think the argument holds. Sugar has a huge and quantifiable LD50. So does, well, water. This tells us that they are pretty much non-toxic at lose doses.
If the LD50 of the "toxins" is similar to water, how can one claim that "de-toxing" will have any benefit?
In other words, how can you call it "detoxing" if none of the things are toxic?
If your colon isn't working properly you are very sick and you need a doctor ASAP not a fast.
The fact fasting (perhaps) has benefits has absolutely nothing to do with "toxins."