Unusual cleanse may seem odd, but it works
- Image via Wikipedia
Last week, I went for my first colonic.
Also known as colon hydrotherapy, a colonic cleanses the colon and intestinal tract by flushing water through the rectum and into the intestines.
Recommended by my holistic nutritionist as part of my cleanse, this unconventional method is very popular to optimize health by way of the colon.
Firstly, the purpose of cleansing your body is to eliminate accumulated toxins.
It’s a very sound principle: get the junk out and the pipes will run better.
But the theory behind colonics suggests that not everything can be cleansed by diet, exercise and drinking lots of water.
Colonic practitioners believe that old undigested food, especially meat and processed nasties, can stick to the walls of your intestines, putrefy, and slowly release toxins into your bloodstream.
Read the whole article right from the source: Unusual cleanse may seem odd, but it works
Criticism of The China Study with Dr. Joseph Mercola and Chris Masterjohn
In this interview, Chris Masterjohn shares his experience with vegetarianism, and his insightful critique of the pro-vegetarian classic, The China Study.
Chris is a doctoral student and expects to graduate with a PhD in nutrition early next year.
In the wake of the internet buzz surrounding raw food blogger Denise Minger’s recent critique, Chris revisited the topic in a series of articles that culminated in “The Curious Case of Campbell’s Rats — Does Protein Deficiency Prevent Cancer?,” a comprehensive review of Campbell’s animal research showing that Campbell made remarkably egregious omissions about the true health of the rats to whom he had fed low-protein diets.
What is particularly troublesome is Campbell’s inability to acknowledge that not all individuals respond favorably to eliminating animal protein from their diet.
John Robbins, an outstanding and passionate speaker in excellent health, gave a very moving and compelling presentation in support of this choice at David Wolfe’s Longevity Now Conference earlier this year in Costa Mesa, California.
Chris’ journey began with John Robbins’ book Diet for a New America, which claims that eating meat is bad for your health and for the environment.
Since he was already very interested in animal rights, this concept confirmed his feelings about consuming animals raised in the horrific conditions that are part and parcel of many modern factory farming facilities.
“Removing those nutrient-dense foods that I needed in my diet precipitated those particular problems in me,” Chris says.
His method is buried deep in a footnote, he provides no references supporting his use of these markers, and most of them didn’t even correlate with animal protein intake within the China Study.
… The first criticism that I made was that Dr. Campbell’s animal experiments were using casein.
In her critique, Minger also made the point that when Dr. Campbell discovered that casein promoted cancer in lab rats whereas wheat protein didn’t, he also found that if you added lysine to the wheat, the wheat became just as powerful a cancer promoter as casein…
“[A] light bulb went off in my head, and I said “Wait a minute, there’s a lot more missing from Dr. Campbell’s description of his rat research than I thought,” Chris says.
“So I went back and analyzed all of Dr. Campbell’s experiments purporting to show that animal protein intake caused cancer in lab animals.
The name of the article is “The Case of Campbell’s Rats: Does Protein Deficiency Protect against Cancer?”
I recommend you read through Chris’ article on this particular aspect, as it further explains why Campbell’s claims can’t be taken at face value.
Campbell also looked at the activities of an enzyme that activates aflatoxin (a carcinogenic mold toxin found in peanut butter) into its carcinogenic form.
He cites an obscure study published by Indian researchers in which they fed animal protein to rats and showed that the animal protein was necessary for aflatoxin to cause cancer.
Those Indian researchers did in fact discover that when rats were fed a low-protein diet they were less likely to get cancer.
“Obviously, it’s far more difficult to make a case for vegetarianism if you tell people that they have to get toxic tissue damage in order to protect themselves from cancer [with a vegetarian diet],” Chris says.
So, whereas Campbell claims he used the low-protein diet to protect the rats from cancer, if you look at the methods, what he actually did was to give them a high-protein diet up until the time that they were given aflatoxin, and then a low-protein diet after they were given aflatoxin.
Listen to and read the conversatin with Dr. Joseph Mercola and Chris Masterjohn probe the flaws that appear to be in The China Study
