Colonic irrigation; is it right up your alley?

[median]

Had a discussion today with someone today, who works in the fitness industry about the supposed benefits of colonic irrigation.

The argument for it, seems to be based on an assumption that undigested meat stays in the colon for a number of years. I argued that from what I have gleaned from certain sources that medical evidence for this was poor.

After a certain amount of data trawling tonight, the colonic irrigation debate widens to the ‘are humans designed to eat meat’ debate.

I came across this:

Body of evidence: were humans meant to eat meat?

E: The Environmental Magazine, Jan-Feb, 2002 by Sally Deneen

Cardiologist William C. Roberts hails from the famed cattle state of Texas, but he says this without hesitation. Humans aren't physiologically designed to eat meat. "I think the evidence is pretty clear. If you look at various characteristics of carnivores versus herbivores, it doesn't take a genius to see where humans line up," says Roberts, editor in chief of The American Journal of Cardiology and medical director of the Baylor Heart and Vascular Institute at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas.
As further evidence, Roberts cites the carnivore's short intestinal tract, which reaches about three times its body length. An herbivore's intestines are 12 times its body length, and humans are closer to herbivores, he says. Roberts rattles off other similarities between human beings and herbivores. Both get vitamin C from their diets (carnivores make it internally). Both sip water, not lap it up with their tongues. Both cool their bodies by perspiring (carnivores pant).
Human beings and herbivorous animals have little mouths in relation to their head sizes, unlike carnivores, whose big mouths are all the better for "seizing, killing and dismembering prey," argues nutrition specialist Dr. Milton R. Mills, associate director of preventive medicine for the Washington, D.C.-based Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM). People and herbivores extensively chew their food, he says, whereas swallowing food whole is the preferred method of carnivores and omnivores.
Dr. Neal D. Barnard, PCRM's founder and president, says humans lack the raw abilities to be good hunters. "We are not quick, like cats, hawks or other predators," he says. "It was not until the advent of arrowheads, hatchets and other implements that killing and capturing prey became possible."

On face value it may seem to some to be a convincing argument so I have highlighted certain points which I think use either selective or only confirmatory evidence.

First of all, the dichotomy presented is one of carnivores v. herbivores; note that no mention of omnivores. >:(
Also there is the bit about mouths but no mention of dental profile in humans which show a mixture of characteristics such as the presence of canines as well as molar/premolars.

Sweating is presented as an argument but doesn’t acknowledge other possible explanations such as being covered in fur. ???

There is also an assumption that to fulfill the criteria of predator one needs to use no extraneous instruments. Indeed the definition of a predator as being quick can also be used to describe gazelles and rabbits.

I think this type of sound-bite illustrates the need to stand back and ask questions as to the underlying assumptions being made.

Either that or I just don’t fancy a hosepipe up me bum.

[Araneus]

Even if humans weren't "designed" to eat meat (whatever the hell that means), that would not prove that undigested meat remains in the gut for years. The whole argument seems like a red herring -- if they are trying to prove that meat cannot be digested, they need to do so, not just waffle on about how similar we are to other herbivores.

I am not doctor but I'm pretty sure nothing remains in the gut for that long, despite various myths (like chewing gum remaining there for 7 years). Why should meat be any harder to digest than vegetable matter, which in many cases contains cellulose which is totally non-digestible by humans?

[huw-l]

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/e...cle/003887.htm

NIH article mentions 72hrs as an abnormally long amount of time for something to stay in the gut.

So the idea of things staying in the gut for years is silly.

Not to mention that your microbial gut flora would break down pretty much any organic substance long before a year had passed.

[Mongrel]

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/e...cle/003887.htm

NIH article mentions 72hrs as an abnormally long amount of time for something to stay in the gut.

So the idea of things staying in the gut for years is silly.

Not to mention that your microbial gut flora would break down pretty much any organic substance long before a year had passed.

And to add to this, we have a variety of ways to start the breakdown of the meat before ingestion. Heat, acid treatment (think tomatoes\vinegar), beating, chopping, hanging, freezing - we've had the concept of cooking ever since our ancestors discovered fire.

[kath23]

I know someone (not me lol) who had to have regular colonoscopies. The recordings while the act was taken place were broadcast on like a telly screen, which they were allowed or sneaked a look at. (unfortunately the anaesthetic never kicked in till after the procedure :o)

They said that the inside of their colon was completely clean, there is no 'gunk' up a colon of any kind. So they know these claims by colonic irrigation fans that there is 'stuff' festering up there, are not true.

[tkingdoll]

Are humans built to digest meat? Simple way of finding out: eat nothing but meat. If you die of starvation, the answer is "no".

[Araneus]

Are humans built to digest meat? Simple way of finding out: eat nothing but meat. If you die of starvation, the answer is "no".

I assume your first question was supposed to be written "Are humans built to digest ONLY meat?". The fact that humans are built to digest meat is demonstrated by the fact that we have appropriate machinery to do so (like canines, and I think the gall bladder plays a part).

[ann]

Ah, now here I can come in as a fan of colonic hyrdotherapy and not a sceptic

Several years ago I suffered from a nasty bout of Diverticulitis. Pouches form in the colon in about 50% of the population, 20% have symptons, and meat and seeds and nuts for example can get caught in there and fester and go bad and you have to go into hospital and have anti b's via a drip or you could be very very seriously ill, as this can be life threatening.

When I had sufficiently recovered I went for a course in colonic cleansing and it did indeed show up some disgusting residue which had been in the colon for a long time, caught in a pouch. The therapy got rid of it, and now I go three or four timesa year to make sure nothing stays there for long.

It's not a painful proceedure and I don't mind having something stuck up my bum if it is going to prevent me going into an NHS dirty old hospital

In fact before the NHS came into being, GP's had colonic machines in just about every surgery, as so many of the 'ills' of mankind can be put down to irregular bowel movements or unexpelled feaces.

There is plenty of evidence for this on the internet, and whilst I realise not everyone has my condition, to be honest, colonic therapists find more gunge inside than is healthy on even those who think they are 100% clean.

And a colonoscopy and a barium enema involves taking a heavy duty laxative before the proceedure, which will keep you on the toilet for 24 hours and just about gets rid of everything so the Xrays or monitors can see what is going on inside without anything else in the way.

Ann

[Cuddles]

There is plenty of evidence for this on the internet, and whilst I realise not everyone has my condition, to be honest, colonic therapists find more gunge inside than is healthy on even those who think they are 100% clean.

What makes you think it is "more than is healthy"?

[ann]

Don't understand the question Cuddles ???

[Admin]

Colonic irrigation is pure quackery: it's completely unnecessary, the claims for it are false, and it can be dangerous.

e.g. see: http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...cs/gastro.html

It's one of those therapies that's peddled by health-quacks. There really is no clinical evidence to show that it does any good whatsoever.

[Araneus]

GP's had colonic machines in just about every surgery, as so many of the 'ills' of mankind can be put down to irregular bowel movements or unexpelled feaces.

That sounds like typical "Golden Hammer Pseudoscience" to me. Whenever somebody claims that "Technique X would solve a lot of the world's problems" the chances are they are peddling quackery of some sort (like chiropractors' "subluxation" nonsense).

[Admin]

That sounds like typical "Golden Hammer Pseudoscience" to me.

It's the Scattergun approach as demonstrated here: http://www.sweetpoison.com/aspartame-side-effects.html

It's used extensively by quacks and scaremongers. People fall for it though as they only need to match up their own condition to one of those listed to be convinced.

[Araneus]

Jeez, how do people even come up with this shit?

Aspartame changes the ratio of amino acids in the blood, blocking or lowering the levels of serotonin, tyrosine, dopamine, norepinephrine, and adrenaline. Therefore, it is typical that aspartame symptoms cannot be detected in lab tests and on x-rays. Textbook disorders and diseases may actually be a toxic load as a result of aspartame poisoning.

I think she's just read a medical dictionary and vomited some jumbled-up mish-mash of jargon onto the page in the hope that some sucker will believe it.

EDIT: Oh I see, this is their reasoning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame_controversy)

One of the functional groups in aspartame is phenylalanine, which is unsafe for those born with phenylketonuria. Phenylalanine is an amino acid commonly found in foods. Approximately 50% of aspartame (by mass) is broken down into phenylalanine. Because aspartame is metabolized and absorbed very quickly (unlike phenylalanine-containing proteins in foods), it is known that aspartame could spike blood plasma levels of phenylalanine.[22][23] The debate centers on whether a significant spike in blood plasma phenylalanine occurs at typical aspartame ingestion levels, whether a sudden influx of phenylalanine into the bloodstream adversely affects uptake of other amino acids into the brain and the production of neurotransmitters (since phenylalanine competes with other Large Neutral Amino Acids (LNAAs) for entry into the brain at the blood brain barrier), and whether a significant rise in phenylalanine levels would be concentrated in the brain of fetuses and be potentially neurotoxic. Note that many of the nutritional supplements suppliers who are denouncing aspartame as toxic also sell phenylalanine as a nutritional supplement.

I guess she's just made the leap from this to listing every possible symptom of reduced neurotransmitter activity.

[median]

Jeez, how do people even come up with this shit?

Given the topic, Araneus, a witty question, if I may say so ???

The fact remains that whilst irrigation or full colon enemas serve some medical purpose i.e. pre-op cleansing, the whole rationale seems to rest on the fallacy of the presence of autotoxins in the bowel.

At present, the orthodox medical community can find no sound evidence to support this