Call Them Fasts or Cleanses, I Call Them Trouble

It may be just because I really don't like the idea of going several days without eating, or it may be that I'm tired of hearing New Age types go on and on about how spiritually enlightened not eating made them feel, but I'm very skeptical about so-called cleanses.

My frustrations found a happy outlet in a self-reported cleanse in yesterday's L.A. Times.

The same people who absolutely berate Western medicine for its failure to consider the body's own healing powers believe that it's necessary to starve yourself for a few days to clean out the gunk in your digestive track. Why is the digestive track the only bodily system not able to heal itself? Because it's gross?

Here's what I think: I think these cleanses are much too much like fad diets. Like Western medicine, they offer a quick, powerful fix to a problem which may cause problems of its own. And in this case, the original problem is ill-defined: tiredness? Constipation? Or — one that believers of cleanses will never admit to — feeling fat?

Cleanses treat your body like a bad girl who needs to be slapped to get good again. And clearly that is not constructive logic. The so-called problems cleanses are meant to fix have other, better solutions: Sleeping, exercising, and eating well.

In fact, the L.A. Times columnist's nutritionist tells her that, though fasts may help you lose weight, you will almost certainly gain it back when you start eating again. The body is able to heal itself, and if you send it the message that food is scarce, it will hoard the calories you give it.

Sure, the columnist admits to feeling great while on her cleanse. But it may have been hunger. Or it may have been laying off bad foods and liquor for a few days. But sustainable food doesn't just mean food that can be grown over the long term; it means food that you can eat healthfully over the long term.

What do you think?

Photo credit: gbSk