17

Felicia Day asked this on Google+:

Is there any scientific basis for drinking extra water to "flush out the toxins" after a massage?

and I am curious if someone here can answer this.

Highly Irregular
  • 1,266
  • 3
  • 14
  • 28
bitboxer
  • 273
  • 2
  • 6
  • 3
    and what toxins might those be exactly? – Monkey Tuesday Aug 24 '11 at 05:33
  • Don't know. But this is not the first time I heard this. Basically they say that through massage the toxins get activated and you need to drink water to help your body to flush them out. Sounds like bogus, I know. But I want a scientific answer for this :) – bitboxer Aug 24 '11 at 05:41
  • 4
    **Which toxins are being activated?** Our bodies need water for a variety of health reasons, and after a 1- to 1.5-hour massage I find that I often do feel a little bit thirsty, but my massage therapist only suggests drinking some water to quench my thirst -- she never makes any claims about "flushing out toxins." Regarding "**toxin removal by massage**," the third paragraph on this web page is interesting: http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/massageschool.html – Randolf Richardson Aug 24 '11 at 05:42
  • Also, **detoxification** seems to be a popular fad these days; this web page refutes some of the more commonly known ones, and even cautions against dangers like **organ damage** (with _Chelation therapy_): http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/detox_overview.html (_"Detoxification" Schemes and Scams_) – Randolf Richardson Aug 24 '11 at 05:52
  • @bitboxer: It might be prudent to first find out (or ask about) whether a particular type of massage treatment can somehow create a condition where toxins need to be removed (and, consequently, identified). With this extra information, I think this question has the potential to be quite good. – Randolf Richardson Aug 24 '11 at 09:41
  • 1
    By toxins I think they mean lactic acids. Like when you work out and your muscles get stiff. I think they're claiming that by massaging the muscles the lactic acid is freed from the muscles and water can help to clear it out and thus reduce soreness. – justin.m.chase Aug 24 '11 at 12:35
  • 2
    @justin: let me be a bit picky... lactic acid definitely does not fall into the "toxin" definition. – nico Aug 24 '11 at 15:18
  • @Sklivvz: I never heard the name, and according to our faq, a claim 'I heard it from a random friend' is not enough to justify a question. But if she is a high-traffic-skeptics-pop-idol, the `too localized`-argument is gone. In my opinion, the kind of toxic still needs to be clarified, and I can't imagine the smallest argument, how massage should insert or produce toxics in the body, except by hocus-pocus. A boring question, but maybe not a reason to close. – user unknown Aug 24 '11 at 16:30
  • 1
    @User Just because a single source is cited in a question does not mean it is the *only* source. A simple google search of "drink water after massage" provides a long list of other sources for the claim. – Beofett Aug 24 '11 at 18:37
  • [See here](http://meta.skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/763/what-questions-can-i-ask-at-skeptics-se/765#765) and [here] (http://meta.skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/806/how-notable-does-a-claim-have-to-be-for-questions-about-it-to-be-considered-on-to/808#808) for war on bad questions without notable claim. I had an even better link but don't find it again. If the claim isn't known for me, I may ask for it; I don't have to google for it. – user unknown Aug 24 '11 at 19:50
  • 1
    You may want to reread those links. This claim is clearly notable, and an answer can be empirically verified. – Beofett Aug 24 '11 at 21:38
  • 2
    The toxins do not need to be defined for the question to be valid. Just investigate what a massage does to the body, and what the effects of drinking extra water are, and then compare with the claim. Don't get hooked up on the exact meaning of the words--claims are not made by scientists... – Sklivvz Aug 24 '11 at 22:12
  • Interesting read with no links to scientific documents..http://www.treatmentmassage.com/understanding-your-body/toxin-release.html – Moab Aug 25 '11 at 00:44
  • @nico: I'm not disagreeing with you. But I think that's what THEY think. – justin.m.chase Aug 25 '11 at 03:25
  • 1
    Either you have to make a clear claim, or link at least to the details. It can't be right to ask others to state what your question is, **and** what the answer is. Else I interpret it "What time is it?" And answer "Too late!". I'm not asking for a scientific formula for the toxics, but is it heavy metal, snake venom, poisonous mushroom or what is it? And why do you need extra water to wash it out? And how shall massage work? Massage on the stomach? The question is a mess. – user unknown Aug 25 '11 at 03:25
  • 1
    @User unknown but I can't ask a masseur the details. He/She doesn't know them. I asked this a few times, but never got an good answer from them. They aren't scientists. BUT when I say them to: this is bullshit, they want proof why. And this is what I am searching here. An explanation on how massage is reacting with your body and if it releases some sort of toxin that could harm you and if water would help. The mythbusters do get a lot of those questions, but they find an answer anyway. Why should this not work here, too? – bitboxer Aug 25 '11 at 05:19
  • So let me rephrase that: You don't know what toxics can be removed by massage, and nobody who claims, that massage can remove toxics knows it? Nor where the toxics are, how they got there, and how much? Nor how it works to remove them - just massage and some extra water - what `extra water` means is left as a homework for the reader? And in child-TV like mythbusters they answer such questions which proves, that we should too? The question is, how you measure the presence and absence of a toxic, if you don't know which. You can't answer such a vague question. Close! – user unknown Aug 25 '11 at 05:31
  • 1
    Okay, @user unknown, where, as a skeptic person, should I get an answer for this so that I can go to a masseur and say: that is wrong because .... ? Most myths a skeptic person is hearing from unskeptic people are similar to this one. And there are a lot of questions here that are similar in the level of missing details because of that. – bitboxer Aug 25 '11 at 06:06
  • 2
    Btw: in http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/4217/is-fasting-healthy you don't vote for a close, but there is also only the mention of "toxic", not what kind of toxic it is. There you chosed to participate in commenting on an answer. – bitboxer Aug 25 '11 at 06:09
  • 1
    This comment thread is getting completely off topic. Move to chat if wish to further discuss... – Sklivvz Aug 25 '11 at 06:27
  • Whenever I heard the word "toxins" my skeptic hackles go up. It's a generic term that quacks like to use when they don't want to make it easy for a scientist to prove their claims as BS categorically. – JohnFx Sep 10 '11 at 04:16

2 Answers2

10

If by "toxins" they mean myoglobin, then there is a at least some scientific basis, if not much evidence of real danger. Muscle damage releases myoglobin into the bloodstream; this is called rhabdomyolysis. Myoglobin is toxic to your kidneys at high concentrations, and dehydration makes attaining those toxic concentrations more likely. The effects are well-documented in conditions causing muscle damage such as excessive exercise, trauma, etc. Massage isn't a recognized cause among healthy people, but I did find this case study of an elderly diabetic man who experienced acute renal failure (ARF) after an unusually vigorous massage session and inadequate hydration. The authors conclude:

Senior and diabetic patients need to be warned that vigorous body massage may cause dangerous complications such as rhabdomyolysis. In addition, the people receiving body massage should drink adequate amount of water before and after the massage session so as to prevent unusual episodes of rhabdomyolysis-associated ARF , which is exacerbated by volume depletion.

NonSequitur
  • 1,219
  • 10
  • 11
  • 1
    I would argue that myoglobin can't really be described as a toxin as it's a naturally occurring protein found in muscle cells, but I'm sure that hasn't stopped alternative medicine practitioners from claiming so. – John Lyon Aug 26 '11 at 06:01
9

No, there is no scientific basis for this claim. Dr Andrew Weil has this to say:

Massage certainly can help address the build up of lactic acid in muscles, and promote the clearing of normal byproducts of muscle metabolism, but I know of no evidence suggesting that massage can remove toxins of any kind from the body.

This Massage Today article written by Keith Eric Grant, PhD, NCTMB, elaborates:

There's a statement, seemingly pervasive throughout massage education and massage books, that unspecified toxins accumulate in the body, and that these toxins can be flushed out by massage. I believe this is yet another myth that continues to be passed on as misinformation to massage students. This is not to dispute that there are very real toxins that accumulate in the body, notably persistent organic pollutants (POPs) in fatty tissues and heavy metals in skeletal tissues. However, these toxins are too chemically bound to their target tissues to be significantly liberated by the mechanical motions of massage.

There's an NIH study showing that massage is not effective for removal of lactic acid buildup:

This investigation highlights the comparison of blood lactate removal during the period of recovery in which the subjects were required to sit down as a passive rest period, followed by active recovery at 30% VO(2)max, and short term body massage, as the three modes of recovery used.... Analysis of lactate values indicated no remarkable difference between massage and a passive type of sitting recovery period. It was observed that in short term massage recovery, more oxygen was consumed as compared to a passive type of sitting recovery. It is concluded from the study that the short term body massage is ineffective in enhancing the lactate removal and that an active type of recovery is the best modality for enhancing lactate removal after exercise.

The primary issue with this claim is that it uses the "alternative medicine" definition of toxin:

In the context of alternative medicine the term is often used to refer to any substance claimed to cause ill health, ranging anywhere from trace amounts of pesticides to common food items like refined sugar or additives such as monosodium glutamate (MSG).

You will never get a clear definition of what "toxins" are in this sense, and so "flushing toxins" should be bundled in with fad "detox diets" whose claimed benefits are not supported by evidence.

Additionally, actual toxins are naturally "flushed" from the body:

Most ingested toxins are efficiently and effectively removed by the kidneys and liver and excreted in urine and stool.

Skepdic also mirrors my sentiments:

Some claim juice fasting is the key to detoxification. Others claim a raw food or vegetarian diet is the best detox therapy. Some swear by enemas; others by ozone therapy, acupuncture, and massage. Others swear by mega-vitamins and antioxidants. Some swear you shouldn't eat anything but fruit until noon so the body can detox properly. Again, none of the proponents of these methods name a single toxin that is removed, in what quantity, or with what specific benefit.

And Sense about Science (PDF) has something similar to say - and that, as with everything, the dose makes the poison:

Claim 1: Toxins have built up in the body and need to be flushed/cleansed from it

The terms ‘toxic’ or ‘toxins’ are used to imply that a chemical is causing you harm. In reality all chemicals can be toxic and it is the dose that is important e.g. one 400 g Vitamin A tablet may be beneficial but taking 20 of these at once could damage your liver. Most chemicals do not accumulate in the body – they are removed by the liver and kidney. Many of the detox products which claim to flush the body of chemicals contain diuretics, which increase the amount you urinate. This just removes water and some salt.

John Lyon
  • 12,791
  • 3
  • 68
  • 70