Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

>In the bottom comment I provided links to resources dealing with food toxicity.

You just provided general resources about food and nutrition (based on the links I'm familiar with -- others could be pseudo-science). Give some specific excerpts about "toxins" and we can discuss them.

All food has side effects (e.g. too much sugar and diabetes, micro-allergies, cured meat and cancer, etc). This is not the same as some unspecified BS "toxins".

It also has nothing to do with "I eat less calories and I get fatter compared to eating more" which was the original claim we disputed -- which is absolutely incorrect.

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-detox-scam/

http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/colon...

https://sciencebasedpharmacy.wordpress.com/2013/01/04/the-de...

http://firstwefeast.com/eat/2014/12/sorry-but-theres-no-such...

http://www.livescience.com/34845-detox-cleansing-facts-falla...

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-detox-scam-how-to-spot-...

http://skepdic.com/detox.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detoxification_(alternative_me...



> You just provided general resources about food and nutrition

Well of course, why would I not ? They include the knowledge I'm using right now.

However I can't help but notice you provide blog posts with opinions, not studies or books.

Again I agree that using the word "toxin" was not a good choice. I'm not a native English speaker, I don't know any proper term for "things the body can't process, and that harms it".

> I eat less calories and I get fatter compared to eating more

Yes it has. A calorie is always in a context. It's extracted it and from this context. During this process, molecules that can harm the body can enter it, or be produced in it. Since using fat to wrap molecules is one of the ways the body cope with it, it has an impact on it.

I'm not saying eating only banana is healthy, but it has few chances of triggering the late mechanism.


>Yes it has. A calorie is always in a context.

No, the context only applies to health. You will always lose weight if you eat less calories, period.

>During this process, molecules that can harm the body can enter it, or be produced in it. Since using fat to wrap molecules is one of the ways the body cope with it, it has an impact on it.

That's not what happens. There is no such procedure that uses fat to "cope with it". Some substances just get accumulated in fat, with no bearing as to wether you can lose that weight by eating less calories. That's a common pseudo-scientific misconception on the "detox" circles.


Example of a context:

- eat a little protein and lots of fructose from an apple from your garden;

- eat the same amount of calories as proteins + fat in industrial meat.

The second amount will create vastly more waste, such as urea, to be processed by the body. It will also require more energy to processed because the fructose is almost usable as-is. Because the second source of calories brings less minerals, it will also bring your PH down, forcing the body to deal with it. Because it's industrial meat, it will contains synthetic products such as antibiotic than will make your livers works a lot more and impact your digestive system flora.

But will not trigger the same insulin response.

Same amount of calories, very different context, and impact on the body.

Again, I notice a trend in those responses: you are just saying I'm wrong harshly but don't make demonstrations. If you know I'm wrong, please use arguments.


You're wrong because you provided a list of diets, but didn't provide how many calories you were eating on each one.

You're being deliberately obtuse and omitting half of the facts to suit your narrative.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: