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. ;D

[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/ency/article/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/ency/article/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 ;D

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/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/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 ;)

[Admin]

Just a quick note (I know it's off topic) but Aspartame is probably the most investigated foodstuff in recent years and in normal doses it is perfectly safe. A lot of concern is over the fact that it also metabolises to Methanol, but in reality the levels produced are less than the levels ingested by eating fruit.

[Cuddles]

Don't understand the question Cuddles ???


You said that colonic irrigationers find more gunge than is healthy inside otherwise healthy people. In what way is it "more than is healthy"? Why do you think that your insides should be sparklingly clean, rather than having a normal amount of stuff inside you at any point?

[Corpse Cruncher]

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 ;D

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
I always thought that this condition was one that was not recommended for colonic as are others?

[JJM]

Post #1 cites the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. This an "animal rights" fanatic group that primarily interested in keeping animals from being food. http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.227/news_detail.asp A healthful diet for humans does not matter to them.

[Julia]

I remember reading that Mae West was a big fan of colonic irrigation - and look how incredibly youthful and slim she remained well into her 80s! ;)

[ZERO]

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:



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. ;D
Humans are omnivores. Early homonids were scavengers and did not need speed and strength to obtain meat. Asking if we are herbivores or carnivores is misleading.


Are humans built to digest meat? Simple way of finding out: eat nothing but meat. If you die of starvation, the answer is "no".
Eskimos or Inuit traditionaly had a diet consisting almost entirely of meat.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/010119.html

[ZERO]

In answer to the OP. Is it right up my alley? Probably not, but maybe I should try it and see if it tickles my fancy.

[SKIRRID5]

I don't know about meat, but I can speak with some authority about how long non-digested things stay in the intestine. Many years ago, while I was having a gold cap fitted on a tooth, the thing slipped out of the dentist's forceps and I swallowed it. That was on a Monday. I got it back on Wednesday, washed it, and went back to the dentist, who fitted it. Actually I ought to have turned up at the surgery with a steaming bucket and said " You dropped it, mate - you find it"

[Melanie]

When my son was three years old, he swallowed a marble. It took three weeks to reappear.

[JJM]

It is refreshing to see that the art of anecdote lives on. However, the colon-detoxifiers are fixated on months and decades, rather than days or weeks.

Of course, an unusual (non-food) object may exhibit an unusual dwell-time; that is part of the nature of being "unusual. "

[Ramontheskeptic]

[quote=median;9981]
Median said:
"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."

Humans are omniovores but I think more by chance (and cunning) than by design. Sure we have adapted to some degree as meat / dairy has been in the diet for millennia, but our teeth did not evolve as raw dead animal masticators. Our short canines are however perfect for puncture biting into hard fruits for example. Carnivore canines usually extend so much they can't properly move their jaw from side to side, and their back teeth simply chop it into smaller pieces, whereas we can to grind meat instead of nuts or veg if we choose to (I personally don't).

But whatever we eat, if our body finds it nasty we either chuck it up or hurry it through and out. Colonic washouts are pointless from a food hygiene point of view, and could only have any use for the chronically constipated or the kinky.

[SKIRRID5]

Apert from a tendency to swallow stuff at the dentist's (see above), I have diverticulosis, though not yet, thankfully, diverticulitis. In the course of getting it diagnosed, I had a barium enema, and it was quite unpleasant. Before they take the X-Ray pics they blow air up your bum, to inflate the intestine I suppose, and it's painful, like really severe wind. Also, you have to fast for about 36 hours beforehand, which is no fun.
Regarding that stuff about seeds or such getting lodged in the pouches, isn't that what people used to say about the appendix? I'm doubtful about that.
The whole colonic obsession is suspiciously Freudian.

[exile]

Indeed. Having had the tradesman's entrance cleaned out a couple of times out of necessity I have to say anyone who does it voluntarily must be a bit strange.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

I'm not reading anymore on this thread. ???

[InForAPennyInForApound]

Most certainly not up my alley ;D

Those who believe colon cleansing/irrigation provides health benefits are incorrect in their thinking (you all have freedom of what to think and do) that by removing toxins from your bodies, boosting your energy and your immune systems. But doctors take a different view, as medical research progressed it proved that our colons absorb water and sodium to maintain our body's fluid and electrolyte balance. Therefore, it’s unnecessary; your colon does not need enemas or diet or laxative pills to eliminate waste material and bacteria. Your colon does it for you naturally on its own. It’s seriously harmful to each one of us. Do not interfere with your body's functioning. Too many so called colon cleansing/irrigation programs disrupt this balance, this balance should never be disrupted at all, and it can cause dehydration and salt depletion, causing the patient to suffer severe cramps. Repeated use of colon irrigation or cleansing can lead to health problems such as malnutrition, anemia and heart failure. Loss of potassium and vitamin C is very dangerous as this causes the heart to destabilize. The heart being a muscle needs its daily feeding of much needed Vitamin C and potassium, therefore I would recommend that people stay away from such drastic measures.

If persons suffer from constipation then rather have an enriched high fiber diet and drink plenty of water. We only have one life, it’s so precious, therefore treat it with respect.

[GordonPears]

If you’re interested in trying a colon cleansing program or purchasing a cleansing product, my advice is to change your diet at least a week in advance.
Thanks

[filippo lippi]

Eat more spam? Would that help?

[GordonPears]

However, it is usually a very safe procedure, and some people believe that it can help with conditions such as indigestion, constipation and bloating.

[Matt]

However, it is usually a very safe procedure, and some people believe that it can help with conditions such as indigestion, constipation and bloating.

you could say the same for leaches

[Trinoc]

you could say the same for leaches
Wasn't there some evidence in recent years favouring the return of the use of leeches for some conditions? Ah yes ... here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3858087.stm) it is.

It's also been found that maggots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maggot_therapy) are good at selectively removing gangrenous tissue from a wound. This is all conventional medical research, as far as I am aware - not some alternative nonsense.

Isn't colonic irrigation just an alt. med. name for what conventional doctors call an enema?

[JJM]

Wasn't there some evidence in recent years favouring the return of the use of leeches for some conditions? Ah yes ... here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3858087.stm) it is.

It's also been found that maggots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maggot_therapy) are good at selectively removing gangrenous tissue from a wound. This is all conventional medical research, as far as I am aware - not some alternative nonsense.I am not aware that maggots were used historically. As for leeches, the current use is not the historical use. For example, more than a century ago some people treated headache with a leech on the tongue. The current uses for maggots and leeches do not validate pre-scientific uses.


Isn't colonic irrigation just an alt. med. name for what conventional doctors call an enema?Not necessarily. The old enemas did not go as far up the colon, or use the pressure, that many quacks use, today. They are often promoted indiscriminately, including for people who never would have been recommended one by an MD 80 years ago. That was when understanding of physiology and anatomy led to rejection of the notion that bad stuff accumulates in the colon.

Colonic irrigation is not without risk. It opens the possibilities of infection (one chiropractor gave a bunch of his customers amoebiasis), colon perforation (a major, life-threatening condition), and intoxication from additives.

Quacks always (correctly) point out that every procedure carries a risk. What they overlook is that, in medicine, risks are measured vs. benefits. In the case of colonics, they are unable to discriminate someone who may benefit from an ordinary enema, and the vast majority who get this procedure indiscriminately.

Search for this at www.quackwatch.org

[Mongrel]

It's also been found that maggots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maggot_therapy) are good at selectively removing gangrenous tissue from a wound. This is all conventional medical research, as far as I am aware - not some alternative nonsense.

Best to stick with the medically approved (http://www.zoobiotic.co.uk/) variety though, not just the ones from the bait shop ;)

[Trinoc]

Best to stick with the medically approved (http://www.zoobiotic.co.uk/) variety though, not just the ones from the bait shop ;)
True, though if I was suffering from gangrene in a tent on a battlefield I might not have the option of being too fussy.

[farmersboy]

True, though if I was suffering from gangrene in a tent on a battlefield I might not have the option of being too fussy.

That's why every survival kit should include a Ray Mears...invaluable in times of wilderness or battle-related need. ;D

[dbb]

Let's discuss colonics and not the stupid "how long does meat stay in the gut"?
And yes... colonic irrigation is rubbish and maybe only necessary - as a one-off - if a patient suffers from severe constipation.
I met hydrotherapists who could see things in the 'shit' of their patients when we need a good quality microscope.
More downsides of colonic irrigation?
- what if the water pressure is too high (inflammation)
- does the coffee (often used in enemas) not attack the cell lining?
- don't you flush out too many bacteria (good or bad does not matter, because there are no good and bad ones. A good turns bad and a bad one turns good quite often and quite regularly).

[Pebble]

Colorectal Dis. 2004 Jul;6(4):258-60.
Comment in:
Colorectal Dis. 2005 Jan;7(1):107-8.
Retrograde commercial colonic hydrotherapy.

Taffinder NJ, Tan E, Webb IG, McDonald PJ.

Department of Surgery, William Harvey Hospital, Ashford, UK.
OBJECTIVE: To ascertain the current practice of commercial colonic hydrotherapy in the UK and to collect data on the profiles of both the practitioners and their clients. In addition to understand how colonic hydrotherapy is perceived by those who use it and how much economic benefit it generates for the practitioners. Information as to training and complications was sought. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to all 80 practitioners registered with the Association of Colonic Hydrotherapists (ACH) of the UK. The practitioners who responded were sent 10 questionnaires to be given to a group of consecutive clients. This client questionnaire included an SF-36 self-administered scoring system and a satisfaction survey. To understand the methodology and ritual of the hydrotherapy procedure a field trip was arranged and two of the authors (NJT and PJM) underwent one colonic hydrotherapy session with an experience practitioner. RESULTS: Thirty-eight (48%) of practitioners responded to our practitioner survey and 242 client questionnaires were returned. One third of practitioners reported a previous clinical background and 32 (83%) were single-handed practitioners. The average time in practice was six years and with an average age of the hydrotherapists being 50 years (22-78 years). Estimated number of sessions conducted were 3200 (range 140-10 000). Average annual income before expenses per practitioner was estimated at pound 45 675. The clients' ages ranged was 18 and 82 years of age (mean 44 years) and had undergone an average of 35 hydrotherapy treatments (range 1-2500). Clients had lower SF-36 scores than the UK norm. CONCLUSION: Colonic hydrotherapy is practised widely in the UK with an estimated 5600 procedures carried out by ACH practitioners monthly. It is not known how much activity is carried out by non-ACH members. ACH practitioners appear to be well trained and a proportion have medical backgrounds. Clients, who are often unhappy with orthodox medicine seem satisfied enough with the experience of colonic hydrotherapy to undergo regular purgings. No serious side-effects have been reported to us. Economic factors could be a driving force for the continuation of the practice as the monies earnt are not inconsiderable.


I think this article sums up the essence of the practice rather nicely.

[lost thought]

Yes it has always been true, where theres muck theres brass. So now it should be we flush your arse you flush the cash. Hows that for a business catchphrase can I copyright it. ;D

We flush your arse, You flush your Cash. it has a certain ring about it..:cheesy:

[GordonPears]

The use of liquid solutions given by enema to remove material from the rectum or colon, ostensibly to eliminate toxins from the bowel. Also known as colonic irrigation and high colonics. So depending on our colon conditions choose the correct treatment by consulting a doctor.