R
Rich Shewmaker
Guest
"Tim Tyler" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> In sci.med.nutrition Rich Shewmaker <[email protected]>
> wrote or quoted:
> > "Tim Tyler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > > In sci.med.nutrition Jeff <[email protected]>
> > > wrote or quoted:
> > > > "Gymmy Bob" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > [http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/ga-
> > > stro.html]
> > >
> > > > > Why would somebody want to go there and watch the
> > > > > quacks spout
what
> > > > > they know nothing about?
> > > >
> > > > You might notice something there that is lacking in
> > > > most of the
posts in
> > > > this newsgroup: references.
> > > >
> > > > So, at least they did their homework. Can you please
> > > > provide
evidence
> > > > where the folks at Quackwatch are incorrect?
> > >
> > > For starters...
> > >
> > > Barrett says that there's "no evidence that hardened
> > > feces accumulate on the intestinal walls"
> >
> > Dr. Barrett is correct. Fecal impaction is NOT an
> > accumulation of
hardened
> > feces on the intestinal walls; [...]
>
> The feces are certainly hardened, accumulating and static.
But not adherant, and not static in the healthy bowel. Fecal
impaction is a serious medical condition which needs
treatment of the underlying cause, not a "cleanse." It's not
the result of an insidious buildup of feces, but rather an
interruption of the natural perstalsis of the gut. The
reason for the stasis needs to be diagnosed and corrected.
The "colon cleanse" has no place in the treatment of
impaction.
>
> > it is a severe form of constipation. While the impacted
> > stool may be "hardened," it does not adhere to the wall
> > of the colon, and is not something left behind after
> > evacuation of the bowel. To attempt a purgative
> > "cleanse" while fecally impacted would be harmful, and
> > possibly fatal. [...]
>
> *Even* conventional medicine uses enemas to treat the
> problem.
Yes, we do. But we discourage the REGULAR use of enemas, and
we NEVER use "high colonics" or other radical enemas.
>
> Often mineral oil is injected through the rectum, and the
> material is then manually manipulated.
With or without lubricant, manual disimpaction is the first-
line treatment for impaction.
>
> Fecal impaction does not arise suddenly. It is normally
> preceded by an extended period of constapation - during
> which the time of passage of material through the colon is
> slowed down - and the fecal material has time to dry out.
> Since the problem is partly caused by dehydration,
> applying water is an obvious form of first aid.
Yes, drinking six to eight glasses of water per day (along
with a proper diet) is the best way to prevent constipation.
That is NOT the same thing as a "cleanse." It is also not
"first aid." It's maintenance.
>
> > What's more, fecal impaction is often the RESULT of the
> > misuse of laxatives and enemas.
>
> Fecal impaction is rarely the result of the misuse of
> laxatives and enemas.
Constipation is the natural result of regular laxative and
enema use. And constipation is the precursor to impaction.
>
> Here is a list of the most common causes:
>
> ``Patients at risk include those who:
>
> * Take certain drugs:
> * Any type of narcotic pain medication
> * Methadone maintenance treatment for narcotic addiction
> * Anticholinergic medications
> * Antidiarrheal medications
> * Have decreased mobility
> * Have a limited diet (especially one that is low in
> fluids)''
>
> - http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/00023-
> 0.htm
>
> Note that it is not laxatives that are mostly to blame -
> but constapation-inducing drugs - such as opiates and
> antidiarrheal medications.
And note that that is not the high risk population that is
promoting the "cleanse" in this newsgroup and providing
anecdotal evidence that this purging made them feel better.
Those who are at greatest risk for constipation/impaction
will not benefit from a "cleanse." The rest of us will not
either. Barrett is still correct.
--Rich
> In sci.med.nutrition Rich Shewmaker <[email protected]>
> wrote or quoted:
> > "Tim Tyler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > > In sci.med.nutrition Jeff <[email protected]>
> > > wrote or quoted:
> > > > "Gymmy Bob" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > [http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/ga-
> > > stro.html]
> > >
> > > > > Why would somebody want to go there and watch the
> > > > > quacks spout
what
> > > > > they know nothing about?
> > > >
> > > > You might notice something there that is lacking in
> > > > most of the
posts in
> > > > this newsgroup: references.
> > > >
> > > > So, at least they did their homework. Can you please
> > > > provide
evidence
> > > > where the folks at Quackwatch are incorrect?
> > >
> > > For starters...
> > >
> > > Barrett says that there's "no evidence that hardened
> > > feces accumulate on the intestinal walls"
> >
> > Dr. Barrett is correct. Fecal impaction is NOT an
> > accumulation of
hardened
> > feces on the intestinal walls; [...]
>
> The feces are certainly hardened, accumulating and static.
But not adherant, and not static in the healthy bowel. Fecal
impaction is a serious medical condition which needs
treatment of the underlying cause, not a "cleanse." It's not
the result of an insidious buildup of feces, but rather an
interruption of the natural perstalsis of the gut. The
reason for the stasis needs to be diagnosed and corrected.
The "colon cleanse" has no place in the treatment of
impaction.
>
> > it is a severe form of constipation. While the impacted
> > stool may be "hardened," it does not adhere to the wall
> > of the colon, and is not something left behind after
> > evacuation of the bowel. To attempt a purgative
> > "cleanse" while fecally impacted would be harmful, and
> > possibly fatal. [...]
>
> *Even* conventional medicine uses enemas to treat the
> problem.
Yes, we do. But we discourage the REGULAR use of enemas, and
we NEVER use "high colonics" or other radical enemas.
>
> Often mineral oil is injected through the rectum, and the
> material is then manually manipulated.
With or without lubricant, manual disimpaction is the first-
line treatment for impaction.
>
> Fecal impaction does not arise suddenly. It is normally
> preceded by an extended period of constapation - during
> which the time of passage of material through the colon is
> slowed down - and the fecal material has time to dry out.
> Since the problem is partly caused by dehydration,
> applying water is an obvious form of first aid.
Yes, drinking six to eight glasses of water per day (along
with a proper diet) is the best way to prevent constipation.
That is NOT the same thing as a "cleanse." It is also not
"first aid." It's maintenance.
>
> > What's more, fecal impaction is often the RESULT of the
> > misuse of laxatives and enemas.
>
> Fecal impaction is rarely the result of the misuse of
> laxatives and enemas.
Constipation is the natural result of regular laxative and
enema use. And constipation is the precursor to impaction.
>
> Here is a list of the most common causes:
>
> ``Patients at risk include those who:
>
> * Take certain drugs:
> * Any type of narcotic pain medication
> * Methadone maintenance treatment for narcotic addiction
> * Anticholinergic medications
> * Antidiarrheal medications
> * Have decreased mobility
> * Have a limited diet (especially one that is low in
> fluids)''
>
> - http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/00023-
> 0.htm
>
> Note that it is not laxatives that are mostly to blame -
> but constapation-inducing drugs - such as opiates and
> antidiarrheal medications.
And note that that is not the high risk population that is
promoting the "cleanse" in this newsgroup and providing
anecdotal evidence that this purging made them feel better.
Those who are at greatest risk for constipation/impaction
will not benefit from a "cleanse." The rest of us will not
either. Barrett is still correct.
--Rich