Detoxification of Heavy Metals

[John V]

No, it did not. My claim was that I would post "information on the topic" if I found it. You're welcome to dispute whether what I posted constitutes information or not.
You claimed that juicing and fasting had certain medical benefits; a claim still lacking any credible scientific support, which is the relevant standard for medical claims.
If you don't see the difference between the two claims, then you really need to see a doctor.

Desperate semantics. Please consider my posts to be "information on the topic."

Juice fasting - not killing 225,000 Americans every year!

[Angrboda]

No, it did not. My claim was that I would post "information on the topic" if I found it. You're welcome to dispute whether what I posted constitutes information or not.
You claimed that juicing and fasting had certain medical benefits; a claim still lacking any credible scientific support, which is the relevant standard for medical claims.
If you don't see the difference between the two claims, then you really need to see a doctor.

Desperate semantics. Please consider my posts to be "information on the topic."

Juice fasting - not killing 225,000 Americans every year!

Wanton advocacy of pseudoscience, causing inestimable damage yearly.


(ETA: It's also worth noting that while juicing and fasting didn't kill 225,000 Americans last year, neither do we have any reason to believe it actually helped anyone in the manner you suggested.)

[Rayaan]

"The confirmation among a new set of patients that fasting is associated with lower risk of these common diseases raises new questions about how fasting itself reduces risk or if it simply indicates a healthy lifestyle."

Bolding mine. Correlation is not causation.

That is correct - but at the same time, you should also remember that the strongest correlations are the most likely causes. Obviously, a single instance of correlation between two different observations doesn't necessarily mean that there is a definitive causal link between the two, but if a correlation shows up over and over again, consistently, then it can be reasonably suggested or implied that that is the most likely cause. In other words, the greater the strength of a correlation - "strength" being the number of times that a correlation occurs - the more justified it becomes for us to think that the correlation implies causation even though it may not necessarily prove that 100%.
/Scientific Method 101

A condition which could also be achieved with proper diet and exercise in an otherwise healthy body.

I agree, although that still doesn't invalidate the fact that fasting can create that kind of a condition as well. (And of course, in the end, people will choose whichever of the methods they find most convenient and/or enjoyable for themselves or depending on whatever reasons that they may have for doing that).

Bolding also mine, my assumption being that it would be suggested to patients with a very high risk of these problems if it were found to be a legitimate solution, not something the population as a whole should do.

I agree with that also.

His google link seemed mostly come back to articles about the heart health study. Mind you, none of this is related to "toxins", but specific problems, and none of it related to heavy metals.

Yeah, because I wasn't responding to the question in the OP exactly, but on the question of whether or not fasting itself is good for the body which you yourself asked earlier.

Did it have to be related to toxins and heavy metals? No.

And then there's this link, which also popped up in the list: http://www.webmd.com/diet/features/is_fasting_healthy

That one is mainly about using fasting as a weight loss tool.

There are apparently both pros and cons in fasting, and different links might say different and opposing things on this subject just like one article may say that coffee is good for you while another article says that it's bad for you, or that chocolate is good for you while another article says that it's bad for you, or that six or less hours of sleep is healthier than eight hours of sleep while another article says the opposite, and so on; So you have to read and investigate each of them for yourself since there are oftentimes a range of different conclusions/opinions on such matters.

[Angrboda]

"The confirmation among a new set of patients that fasting is associated with lower risk of these common diseases raises new questions about how fasting itself reduces risk or if it simply indicates a healthy lifestyle."

Bolding mine. Correlation is not causation.

That is correct - but at the same time, you should also remember that the strongest correlations are the most likely causes. Obviously, a single instance of correlation between two different observations doesn't necessarily mean that there is a definitive causal link between the two, but if a correlation shows up over and over again, consistently, then it can be reasonably suggested or implied that that is the most likely cause. In other words, the greater the strength of a correlation - "strength" being the number of times that a correlation occurs - the more justified it becomes for us to think that the correlation implies causation even though it may not necessarily prove that 100%.
/Scientific Method 101

Wrong. Strength of correlation indicates nothing about its probability of being the cause, because correlation cannot distinguish between causative relationships and spurious relationships caused by confounding factors.

And that was specifically the point of the author of the article.

Even if 100% of all drownings occur when ice cream trucks are circulating the neighborhood, it does not demonstrate that the circulation of ice cream trucks is the cause of those drownings, or even a likely cause.

/Where did you learn science 101?

[Rayaan]

"Scientists (and others) often arrive at a point where they assume, pragmatically, that there is a causal link between two things even when the link can’t be explained in a coherent model. In fact, this happens quite often and is probably what directs a lot of research, as novel experiments or exploratory programs are designed to pin down such a model. When this happens, the presumption of causality has been derived from mere correlation. It has been said (go look it up in Wikipedia) that correlation does not prove causation, but it can be a hint. In practice, and logically, there is too large a gap between the statement 'Correlation implies or proves causality' and 'Correlation is a hint.'"

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2011/0...elation-i/


"Researchers trying to find reasons for various things will often use statistical methods to establish correlations: this may be the first step toward establishing the cause. Scientists and statisticians can use a formula to determine the strength of a relationship between two phenomena. This gives a figure, known as the square of the correlation coefficient, or R2, which always lies between 0 and 1, with a value closer to 1 indicating a stronger correlation."

http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-the-diff...lation.htm


"Correlations can be positive - so that as one variable (marijuana smoking) goes up, so does the other (relationship trouble); or they can be negative, which would mean that as one variable goes up (methamphetamine smoking) another goes down (grade point average). The trouble is that, unless they are properly controlled for, there could be other variables affecting this relationship that the researchers don't know about. For instance, education, gender, and mental health issues could be behind the marijuana-relationship association (these variables were all controlled for by the researchers in that study)."

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/all-...t-all-mean


Want to know anything else about this?

[Angrboda]

Want to know anything else about this?

Sure. I'd like to know how it substantiates what you said, and refutes what I said. Because it doesn't. Matter of fact, one of the articles you cited even makes the same point that I made.


Now I'm just going to ignore you, Rayaan.

Like your previous articles, and John's, they seem to be generated by a google search for buzzwords followed by a healthy exercise of confirmation bias. You don't seem to understand the substance at all.

And I'm tired of wasting my time carefully reading articles that have zero relevance just to be absolutely sure that I haven't missed something.

[KichigaiNeko]

Ummm just one thing though....

If one is drinking juices/ smoothies/ flavoured water, how can one be said to be fasting??

Just as silly as Ramadan if you asks me.

[Rayaan]

Sure. I'd like to know how it substantiates what you said, and refutes what I said. Because it doesn't.

The first thing you said in your reply is that I was "wrong" (in saying that stronger correlations imply a greater likelihood of causation although they don't necessarily prove that with a 100% certainty). But the passages that I quoted above are supporting exactly what I said. I've also highlighted some of the words in case you didn't catch them.

I thought I wouldn't even have to point them out to you again, but apparently I had to.

Matter of fact, one of the articles you cited even makes the same point that I made.

Which part of the article exactly?

Now I'm just going to ignore you, Rayaan.

Like your previous articles, and John's, they seem to be generated by a google search for buzzwords followed by a healthy exercise of confirmation bias. You don't seem to understand the substance at all.

But I haven't seen you falsify any of the quotes in my articles. Instead, you're just saying "they don't refute anything I said and I'm still right" without actually showing that.

And I'm tired of wasting my time carefully reading articles that have zero relevance just to be absolutely sure that I haven't missed something.

I think they are relevant to what we were discussing, but surely, you don't have to read them if you think doing so is a waste of your time.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

No, it did not. My claim was that I would post "information on the topic" if I found it. You're welcome to dispute whether what I posted constitutes information or not.
You claimed that juicing and fasting had certain medical benefits; a claim still lacking any credible scientific support, which is the relevant standard for medical claims.
If you don't see the difference between the two claims, then you really need to see a doctor.

Desperate semantics. Please consider my posts to be "information on the topic."

Juice fasting - not killing 225,000 Americans every year!

Placebos don't kill either.

[catfish]

Desperate semantics. Please consider my posts to be "information on the topic."

Juice fasting - not killing 225,000 Americans every year!

Placebos don't kill either.

Nope, they don't.
But this chemical compound does: Dihydrogen Monoxide