Skip to main content

How do they get away with it? The detox debunk

'Detox' has for a good number of years been one of those words that is bandied around by companies to sell products because it sounds good, without actually meaning anything much. Infamously the Prince of Wales' Duchy Originals sells a detox tincture (now available through Waitrose, hurrah!) that is supposed to be 'a food supplement to help eliminate toxins and aid digestion'. Despite the ASA upholding a complaint about their advertising, the stuff is still on sale.

Even worse, I saw in a women's magazine the other day (don't ask) blurb for a 'detox diet' that told us 'a detox diet can be just as good as botox!' According to the magazine:
  • This diet will rid you of stored toxins so your complexion clears and skin tone and colour becomes even
  • Excess water is flushed out, taking with it debris and toxins, reducing puffiness and dark circles around the eyes
  • Antioxidant foods combat the aging damage done by free radicals in your body when you're emotionally stressed, sunbathe or exercise a lot.
  • Includes foods that will take years off your skin: such as spinach, which is full of beta-carotene to improve skin firmness, omega-3 rich oily fish to reduce redness and watermelon to give you a dewy complexion
I don't know where to start with what's wrong with this. It is full of misleading information.
  • There are no such things as ‘stored toxins’
  • There’s no such thing as detox
  • When you use botox you are adding a toxin, not removing it – botox is a toxin
  • Excess water is a meaningless concept in the way it’s used here
  • Antioxidant foods don’t combat free radicals. The antioxidants naturally produced by your body do, but trials of consuming antioxidants have had, if anything, a negative impact on health. It’s a myth.
What I don't understand is how they (by which I mean all these people who make money out of ripping customers off by selling them snake oil) get away with such blatant stuff. Don't get be wrong, of course you look better on a good diet than when you are eating rubbish. But 'detox'? Give me strength. (Prince Charles probably has a tincture for that.)


Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope