11

I was presented with an "interesting" alternative form of medicine today: clay. As in, the consumption of it.

10 Good Reasons To Eat Clay!

  • To assist your body in the removal of toxic substances in the digestive system such as bacterial food poisoning, organic and inorganic toxicity.
  • To cleanse your colon and promote proper bacterial balance in the intestines.
  • To begin the process of detoxification of the liver and to stimulate your liver function.
  • To assist your body in the removal of heavy metals and recovery from chemical and radiation therapies.
  • To detoxify throughout your entire body for better metabolism and weight control.
  • To reduce free radical damage; thus anti-aging.
  • To improve your immune systems function and cellular respiration.
  • To increase the bio-availability/assimilation of calcium.
  • To help moderate acids in your body due to a high PH compound.
  • To provide your body with a full spectrum of natural bio-available colloidal trace minerals.

The explanation goes roughly like this: the clay is apparently negatively charged, and when consumed bonds with positively charged "toxins" in the body. This Wikipedia article quotes, I assume, from the source of this idea (although, it isn't referenced).

Is there any scientific or medicinal basis for this? And if not, how much of the claims, if any, are true? (e.g. is clay actually negatively charged normally?)

Oddthinking
  • 140,378
  • 46
  • 548
  • 638
voithos
  • 453
  • 1
  • 4
  • 9
  • My mother said she actually ate clay after giving birth to me. I think that this is very "WTF" and that she was crazy for doing that. – Victor Stafusa - BozoNaCadeia Sep 16 '12 at 18:25
  • 1
    @Victor: I have heard multiple times of pregnant women "craving" clay, or some form of earth. Whether or not that means anything, I cannot say. – voithos Sep 16 '12 at 18:33
  • ...Also, it is slightly basic, so the pH-claim is true for stomach acid. It contains K⁺, Mg²⁺ and Ca²⁺ which may be released by the stomach acid (but there are lots of other more digestible sources for these minerals like potatoes, (mineral) or sometimes just tap water etc.)... So there is some truth behind those legends, that made it a proper (and working) medicine before more specific medication and better food hygiene were available. – cbeleites unhappy with SX Oct 14 '12 at 21:30
  • ... sorry, Part 1 now: Have a look at the Wiki page about medicinal clay. The main thing seems to be that is is very fine grained material, and can adsorb lots of things. E.g. toxins from spoiled food. Which used to lead to nausea and diarrea before better food hygiene was available. Neither were antibiotics against the wrong kind of bacteria in the food. I think it used to be a "valid" medicine, probably as competitor to charcoal. However, as there is now better medicine, and you should not use it internally for gastro-intestinal trouble as it can adsorb medication with serious consequences. – cbeleites unhappy with SX Oct 14 '12 at 21:38
  • ... part 3: It is slightly basic, so the pH-claim is true in a way: it will neutralize stomach acid. So does baking soda. It is also true that it contains lots of minerals, and due to the fine particle structure it makes sense to assume they can partially be dissolved by the stomach acid. However, the problem with Ca²⁺ uptake is usually the vitamin D, not the Ca²⁺ (see MCM's answer; drinking water in many regions contains more than enough Ca²⁺). For K⁺, I'd recommend any kind of vegetable. Mg²⁺ is (if not covered by normal food) easily accessible in the form of mineral water. – cbeleites unhappy with SX Oct 14 '12 at 21:44
  • all in all, I think there are large grains of truth behind the claims, just they don't sound as great once you realize that the need for "moderation of acid" means just your stomach acid... (Put it as a comment, as I don't have time to go for more literature and just took the questions that I can answer as a chemist) – cbeleites unhappy with SX Oct 14 '12 at 21:48
  • @Victor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pica_%28disorder%29 – Nate Eldredge Mar 24 '14 at 00:56
  • We have another question here about being poisoned by aluminum if you lick the lid of your yogurt container. And one about carbon formed on an iron skillet. I guess eating clay will give you far more aluminum and carbon than that! – GEdgar Jul 18 '16 at 12:21
  • Claims might be wild but medicinal clay is not unheard of. In fact the over-the-counter stomach medicine, [Kaopectate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaopectate) originally was comprised of kaolinite and [pectin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pectin). Nowadays it’s just another version of [bismuth subsalicylate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bismuth_subsalicylate) which is the same junk they make pretty much every stomach medicine out of. Kaolinite and [bentonite](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bentonite) are still available from some places for medicinal use. – Giacomo1968 Jan 14 '18 at 05:58

1 Answers1

21

"Toxins" in the context of homeopathy/alternative medicine aren't real and are not harbored in the body. Therefore any "cure" is just as fake. Your colon does not accumulate detritus or poisons, and any blockage or accumulation is pathological.

Chelating agents are used to bind heavy metals in vivo before they are excreted, and I'm not aware of any mechanism involving the common components of clay which would act in a similar fashion - though ingesting clay would certainly introduce heavy metals into your system if the clay contained them.

If you are DEFICIENT in Zinc, consumption of Zinc can increase immune system effectiveness if it is part of the clay.

Vitamin D promotes Calcium absorption. However, the clay may contain Calcium - introducing more to your overall intake.

Clay does not enter your blood, where acidosis would take place. Positively charged ions might help if they found their way into the bloodstream (Calcium, Sodium, Potassium) if the clay contained them.

From an article from the Royal Society of Medicine on Geophagia (eating dirt):

Fine red clay is often preferred. In particular, geophagia is observed during pregnancy or as a feature of iron-deficiency anaemia. Where poverty and famine are implicated, earth may serve as an appetite suppressant and filler; similarly, geophagia has been observed in anorexia nervosa. However, geophagia is often observed in the absence of hunger, and environmental and cultural contexts of the habit have been emphasized. Finally, geophagia is encountered in people with learning disability, particularly in the context of long-term institutionalization; in this regard, geophagia and other forms of pica are associated with a high rate of complications and substantial morbidity and mortality.

MCM
  • 2,854
  • 27
  • 24
  • 2
    Please make sure that all of your assertions are well based on references. Most of them seem to be mere opinion. – Sklivvz Sep 16 '12 at 08:45
  • Most of them are basic human biology questions about "toxins" which aren't a thing in the context of homeopathy. Not sure I could find an academic source, but if I stumble upon one I'll amend the post. – MCM Sep 16 '12 at 13:13
  • 2
    No, they aren't, and sources are not an "if I find them" optional thing. They are compulsory. – Sklivvz Sep 16 '12 at 15:36
  • 2
    Then it will simply be easier to avoid those claims, as it's pretty much a Gish-gallop at the beginning whilst I answered his question directly at the end of my post. – MCM Sep 16 '12 at 16:34
  • I take issue with your first link, claiming that toxins are not real. It's an opinion piece, and it doesn't really relate to the question. You claim that "toxins are not real in the context of homeopathy." Okay... But toxnis *are* real in other contexts. And certain toxins are known to accumulate in certain parts of the body (consider [Dental fluorosis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dental_fluorosis) for an obvious example). Also, the question specifically mentions "bacterial food poisoning", which is certainly a real thing (although sloppy terminology, perhaps). – Flimzy Mar 26 '14 at 01:31
  • @Flimzy - Yes, toxins exist in other contexts. In the context of Alternative Medicine ("Homeopathy") as directly stated by the asker, though, they do not. In reference to your example: Fluoride is *not* a **toxin**. It can be *toxic* depending upon exposure (the same as water and nitrogen and vitamin-C and nearly everything), but it is not a *toxin*. Toxins are poisonous substances produced by living organisms, such as Shiga-like and Cholera toxins, which are generally injected into affected cells and avoid antibodies/medicines until the infection reaches very high levels. – MCM Mar 27 '14 at 00:20
  • 2
    @MCM: 1) The question mentions "toxic substances", not "toxins", and also provides specific (real) examples. I'm not sure why you think attacking the term "toxins" is even appropriate. 2) Homeopathy is hardly the only form of alternative medicine. 3) I'm aware of the technical definition of "toxin" as produced by a living organism. But that doesn't really change the nature of the question--it only points out its sloppy terminology. Addressing that terminology is fine in an answer, but better not done with an opinion piece – Flimzy Mar 27 '14 at 17:36
  • 1
    .. and finally: 4) Fluoride is a [neurotoxin](http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=PIwXbWRhb08T15peqS55G7aJ7oamreyH)--calling it therefore a "toxin" seems quite acceptable, at least for non-biologists. Again, address the sloppy terminology if you wish, but please do so with facts, not opinions. – Flimzy Mar 27 '14 at 17:37
  • @Flimzy - You can't address Alternative Medicine "Toxins" outside of opinion pieces because they've never been proven to exist. What, exactly, should I research? What *is* organic toxicity? Inorganic toxicity? What is clay supposed to "Detoxify" the whole body of? Which toxins are positively charged? All of them? Also... I'm sure high enough levels of Fluoride would have effects (and may constitute a 'toxin' in another context), but I wouldn't reference an opinion-based journal entry that references a meta-analysis of Chinese journal entries (which are notorious for being faked). – MCM Mar 28 '14 at 02:13
  • @MCM: Again, I agree the claim uses sloppy terminology, but that doesn't mean it's okay to use invalid sources to refute it. Organic toxicity? It could plausibly mean *true* toxins. Inorganic toxicity? Perhaps non-organic toxic substances such as arsenic. These are guesses, but they seem like reasonable guesses, and they would certainly refer to *real things*. – Flimzy Mar 28 '14 at 02:30
  • @MCM: I think the proper criticism against "detoxification" is not that toxins (or other toxic substances) don't exist... but that the detoxification is said to provide ambiguous relief for ambiguous symptoms. This is the problem with most pseudo-science, and as such, pseudo-science should (and legitimately can) be addressed on these grounds--not by linking to an insulting opinion piece. – Flimzy Mar 28 '14 at 02:32
  • @Flimzy - If you want to refute guesses at the interpretation of the content, be my guest. Nothing is preventing *you* from answering to your satisfaction. I answered in the context of the question, and if your *only* problem is with the opinion piece, then I am fine with that. The rest is backed up with better resources, and all anyone can ever have on "toxins" in the context of alternative medicine/homeopathy are opinions **until they are proven to exist and otherwise identified**. – MCM Mar 28 '14 at 12:32
  • @MCM: My only problem with your answer is the use of inflammatory opinion articles as evidence. That is well below the standard of this site. – Flimzy Mar 28 '14 at 15:30
  • @Flimzy - Then feel free to *suggest an edit* with your own article, which is completely acceptable. I'll read it, and if I think it's better, then I'll edit my answer. – MCM Mar 28 '14 at 18:17