The Acid-Alkaline Myth: Part 1

149306852

Many of you have probably heard of the ‘alkaline diet’. There are a few different versions of the acid-alkaline theory circulating the internet, but the basic claim is that the foods we eat leave behind an ‘ash’ after they are metabolized, and this ash can be acid or alkaline (alkaline meaning more basic on the pH scale).

According to the theory, it is in our best interest to make sure we eat more alkaline foods than acid foods, so that we end up with an overall alkaline load on our body. This will supposedly protect us from the diseases of modern civilization, whereas eating a diet with a net acid load will make us vulnerable to everything from cancer to osteoporosis. To make sure we stay alkaline, they recommend keeping track of urine or saliva pH using handy pH test strips.

In this two-part series, I will address the main claims made by proponents of the alkaline diet, and will hopefully clear up some confusion about what it all means for your health.

Will eating an alkaline diet make you and your bones healthier?

Foods can influence our urine pH

Before I start dismantling this theory, I want to acknowledge a couple things they get right. First, foods do leave behind acid or alkaline ash. The type of ‘ash’ is determined by the relative content of acid-forming components such as phosphate and sulfur, and alkalis such as calcium, magnesium, and potassium. (1, 2) In general, animal products and grains are acid forming, while fruits and vegetables are alkali forming. Pure fats, sugars, and starches are neutral, because they don’t contain protein, sulfur, or minerals.

It’s also true that the foods we eat change the pH of our urine. (3, 4) If you have a green smoothie for breakfast, for example, your pee a few hours later will likely be more alkaline than that of someone who had bacon and eggs. As a side note, it’s also very easy to measure your urine pH, and I think this is one of the big draws of the alkaline diet. Everyone can probably agree that it’s satisfying to see concrete improvements in health markers depending on your diet, and pH testing gives people that instant gratification they desire. However, as you’ll see below, urine pH is not a good indicator of the overall pH of the body, nor is it a good indicator of general health.

Foods don’t influence our blood pH

Proponents of the alkaline diet have put forth a few different theories about how an acidic diet harms our health. The more ridiculous claim is that we can change the pH of our blood by changing the foods we eat, and that acidic blood causes disease while alkaline blood prevents it. This is not true. The body tightly regulates the pH of our blood and extracellular fluid, and we cannot influence our blood pH by changing our diet. (5, 6) High doses of sodium bicarbonate can temporarily increase blood pH, but not without causing uncomfortable GI symptoms. (7, 8) And there are certainly circumstances in which the blood is more acidic than it should be, and this does have serious health consequences. However, this state of acidosis is caused by pathological conditions such as chronic renal insufficiency, not by whether you choose to eat a salad or a burger. In other words, regardless of what you eat or what your urine pH is, you can be pretty confident that your blood pH is hovering around a comfortable 7.4.

A more nuanced claim has been proposed specifically regarding bone health, and this hypothesis is addressed somewhat extensively in the scientific literature. It supposes that in order to keep blood pH constant, the body pulls minerals from our bones to neutralize any excess acid that is produced from our diet. Thus, net acid-forming diets (such as the typical Western diet) can cause bone demineralization and osteoporosis. This hypothesis, often referred to as the ‘acid-ash hypothesis of osteoporosis,’ is what I will discuss for the rest of this article. I’ll address some of the other health claims in part two.

The kidneys – not bone – regulate blood pH

While more reasonable than the first claim, the acid-ash hypothesis seems to completely disregard the vital role the kidneys play in regulating body pH. The kidneys are well equipped to deal with ‘acid ash.’ When we digest things like protein, the acids produced are quickly buffered by bicarbonate ions in the blood. (7) This reaction produces carbon dioxide, which is exhaled through the lungs, and salts, which are excreted by the kidneys. During the process of excretion, the kidneys produce ‘new’ bicarbonate ions, which are returned to the blood to replace the bicarbonate that was initially used to buffer the acid. This creates a sustainable cycle in which the body is able to maintain the pH of the blood, with no involvement from the bones whatsoever.

Thus, our understanding of acid-base physiology does not support the theory that net acid-forming diets cause loss of bone minerals and osteoporosis. But just for argument’s sake, let’s say that our renal system cannot handle the acid load of the modern diet. If bones were used to buffer this excess acid, we would expect to see evidence of this taking place in clinical trials. Alas, that is not the case.

Clinical trials do not support the acid-ash hypothesis of osteoporosis

At first glance, some of the studies may look convincing, because higher acid diets often increase the excretion of calcium in the urine. Some researchers assumed that this extra calcium was coming from bone. (8) However, when calcium balance (intake minus excretion) was measured, researchers found that acid-forming diets do not have a negative effect on calcium metabolism. (9) Some studies found that supplementing with potassium salts (intended to neutralize excess acid) had beneficial effects on markers for bone health, which would tend to support the acid-ash hypothesis. However, these results were only observed in the first few weeks of supplementation, and long-term trials did not find any benefit to bone health from these alkalizing salts. (10)

Finally, even though the hypothesis holds that higher intakes of protein and phosphate are acidifying and therefore detrimental to bone health, multiple studies have shown that increasing protein or phosphate intake has positive effects on calcium metabolism and on markers for bone health. (11, 12) Summarizing the clinical evidence, two different meta-analyses and a review paper all concluded that randomized controlled trials do not support the hypothesis that acidifying diets cause loss of bone mineral and osteoporosis. (13, 14, 15)

So, it appears that neither physiology nor clinical trials support the acid-ash hypothesis of osteoporosis. But again, just for argument’s sake, let’s suppose that these trials are imperfect (which they are, of course; no science is perfect!), and thus we can’t depend on their conclusions. If the acid-ash hypothesis of osteoporosis were true, we would expect to see an association between net acid-producing diets and osteoporosis in observational studies. Yet again, this is not the case.

Observational studies do not support the acid-ash hypothesis of osteoporosis

Observational studies have not found a correlation between dietary acid load and bone mineral density (BMD) or fracture risk, nor have they found a correlation between urine pH and BMD or fracture risk. (16, 17, 18) Additionally, higher protein intakes are correlated with better bone health in multiple studies, even though high-protein diets are generally net acid forming. (19) In fact, animal protein in particular (the most acid-forming food of all) has been associated with better bone health. (20, 21) Imagine that! One study included in a recent meta-analysis did find an association between higher protein intake and greater risk for fracture (22), but compared to the numerous more recent studies showing the opposite, this evidence isn’t very strong. Overall, the acid-ash hypothesis of osteoporosis is not supported by physiology, clinical trials, or observational data.

Hopefully I’ve given you a decent understanding of how our bodies handle pH balance, and have reassured you that you don’t need to worry about the acidity of your urine with regards to bone health. Click HERE for part two where I tackle some of the other claims of the alkaline diet!

Like what you’ve read? Sign up for FREE updates delivered to your inbox.

  • I hate spam too. Your email is safe with me.

Comments Join the Conversation

  1. John says

    James,
    You are sounding very defensive!
    I was recently diagnosed with a return of Prostate Cancer. This was found after 4 years of a rise in mt PSA from Post Prostatectomy of 0 to 1.18. Established medicine, of which you subscribe,wanted to perform 42 Radiation treatments over a period of 7 weeks. I chose the PH Diet and after 3 weeks my PSA dropped from 1.18 to 1.04. I have remained on the diet and I am due for my next blood test in a week.
    When is your profession going to stop killing people with old methods that don’t work just so you can take the money from the drug companies.

  2. Helen says

    Hi James. I’ve been reading nutritional info since I was 16. I’m 58 now. I agree with you. Thanks for the info!
    Anyways, could you advise me as how to make a facial toner using citric acid.

    Thank you,
    Helen

  3. David Mcquain says

    The lower the ph the more acidic stuff is the higher the ph it is it becomes a base people dont seem to realize 7 is a ok ph its neutral a strong base is dangerous look at bleach get some on you and do nothing about it your skin could start peeling off

  4. says

    James,

    I read some of your comments and am especially interested in the one where you talk of hydroxides. I make magnesium water from magnesium hydroxide and carbonated water and use it regularly. I’m wondering now if this is safe after seeing your comments. I do dilute the magnesium bicarbonate with distilled water before drinking but am wondering if it might be working against me. I’ve been trying to correct a magnesium deficiency with the magnesium bicarbonate water. Now I’m thinking it may be creating other issues. Please give me you take on this. Thanks in advance.

    • James says

      Reacting the magnesium hydroxide with carbonic acid will form a magnesium carbonate and carbonates are a lot safer than the mineral hydroxides. Although both neutralize stomach acid, which is not a good thing, the carbonates are not caustic like the mineral hydroxides and do not chemically burn the tissues like the mineral hydroxides formed in ionized alkaline water or formed from mixing certain metal oxides in water.

      Overall though the best thing to do would be to mix the magnesium hydroxide with malic or citric acids to form magnesium malate or citrate. Both are found in lemon juice.

      Hydroxides and carbonates are very poorly absorbed to begin with. The acidified salts such as the malates and citrates are much better absorbed.

  5. Kieron says

    I haven’t read all the comments, but i have read a lot. I am not a scientist but I have a laymans understanding of some things. James, you could be wrong. Science is and always will be flawed. True scientists talk in ‘odds’ and not ‘facts’. Just because your science doesn’t indicate something, it doesn’t mean it can not be. Placebo is most likely a very real ‘thing’. Faith in a lifestyle has strongly indicated positive results in many studies and this is probably as true of the blinkereed scientist as it is of the health fad fanatic. The truth is that we don’t really ‘know’ anything and everything falls in to infinite decreasing/increasing half lifes of posibility. I don’t trust the medical profession, the cancer charity industry, the meat and dairy (and food) industry or any establishment with financial/political interests in what I think, say and eat. What I am more likely trust is my own personal observations and the very impartial trials of this diet in the un-regulated real world. Wheather or not we can explain it with food-science or not at this point in time, if it’s improving people’s diet, lifestyle and quality of life then I think we should let it be and work out the science afterwards. MAny thanks xxx

    • James says

      Hi Keiron,

      “Could be wrong” is far from “am wrong”.

      Science is evolving all the time but we have to go with what science has “proven” at this point. Just because you think science is flawed does this mean that we should just claim gravity may not really exist? Maybe we should just regard all the claims made about healthy nutrition since science has proven this but according to you science is flawed. At what point do we stop throwing out all that science has taught us just because it MAY be flawed?

      I will agree that SOME science is flawed. For instance there are all sorts of manipulated medical studies out there. How do we know they are manipulated? Because science gives us the evidence to weed through what is real and what is obviously quack science.

      For example, there was a study that claimed vitamin C increased the risk of heart disease. Was this claim true or were the study results misinterpreted? How would we be able to tell the difference without science? Answer, we could not. So how did I know these study results were misinterpreted. Simple, science told me. According to the findings of the study the claim of increased risk of heart disease because it thickened the arterial wall. What science told me is that this was not a bad thing and it was not increasing the risk of heart disease. Vitamin C is needed for the formation of the structural proteins collagen and elastin in the blood vessels. This makes the arterial walls thicker so they can handle the higher pressure the arteries are exposed to and prevents aneurysm. The thicker walls DO NOT mean decreased circulation since the elastin allows the arteries to expand and contract to maintain proper circulation and blood pressure. Therefore, science told me that even though the walls were thickening just like they are supposed to for health of the artery this would not decrease circulation since the muscle of the blood vessel would simply relax to compensate.

      We should not fear science, we should embrace it and learn from it.

      As for the so-called alkaline diet as has been pointed out diet does not alkalize the blood. But this does not mean the so-called alkaline diet is bad. People benefit not from a pH adjustment but rather better nutrition, which includes a variety of beneficial acids.

      James

      • Morgan says

        Two things I noticed: your first statement said eating alkaline foods to leave an acid ash. Not necessarily. Limes have a low pH but leave an alkaline ash. Also, thickening of the arteries is detrimental to cardio health in that the function of elastin depletes as we age and therefore it becomes more difficult for our bodies to compensate…leaving us with hardened thick arteries. I really enjoyed your chemical explainations on magic and citric acids!

        • Morgan says

          Tomatoes and avocados also leave an alkaline ash. I would like to learn more about the different combinations of foods and how that changes the chemical process our bodies have to use in order to compensate for the types of foods we eat as individuals. I am sure it also very much depends on the activity level and lifestyle of the individual. I think it is nearly impossible to come up with a perfect set of guidelines for everyone to follow.

          • James says

            Morgan: “Tomatoes and avocados also leave an alkaline ash.”

            Again, the metabolism of foods DOES NOT leave an ash residue as is obtained by the thermal burning of foods used to create the ash that is being analyzed.

            Morgan: “I would like to learn more about the different combinations of foods and how that changes the chemical process our bodies have to use in order to compensate for the types of foods we eat as individuals.”

            Compensate for what? As pointed out there is NO such thing as an alkalizing food. ALL foods get metabolized in to acids. And pH is regulated almost exclusively through respiration followed by hydrogen ion retention or elimination by the kidneys. Not diet.

        • James says

          Morgan: “Two things I noticed: your first statement said eating alkaline foods to leave an acid ash”.

          I never said that. What I said is that the alkaline myth is based on the measurement of alkaline ash only. And that this is extremely misleading since it totally ignores the naturally occurring acids within these foods and the acids that ALL foods metabolize in to.

          Morgan: “Not necessarily. Limes have a low pH but leave an alkaline ash. ”

          Limes have a low pH because of the various acids in them, which again is not considered when foods are considered alkalizing. But these foods do not burn in the body in the same sense as they are burned to obtain the ash residue. So no, they do not leave an ash when digested.

          There is a lot of potassium in limes, but this DOES NOT alter the blood pH. First of all keep in mind that the potassium is going to react with stomach acid forming potassium chloride salt. The potassium is alkaline, but the chloride is acidifying. And has been pointed out so many times virtually all pH regulation is maintained by respiration followed by ion retention or elimination by the kidneys. Not by salts.

          People do often talk about the so-called “alkaline response” from ingesting citrus juices. Again, this has absolutely nothing to do with the potassium in the citrus juice. In addition, this same exact alkaline response occurs with EVERY food you consume including steak, candy bars, lettuce, cake, etc. The alkaline response is nothing more than the release of pancreatic bicarbonate to neutralize the acid in chyme leaving the stomach as part of the normal digestive process. So again, this occurs with ALL foods.

          Morgan: “Also, thickening of the arteries is detrimental to cardio health in that the function of elastin depletes as we age and therefore it becomes more difficult for our bodies to compensate…leaving us with hardened thick arteries.”

          Not really.

          First of all the arteries need to be thicker for a very simple reason. They are subjected to much higher pressures than the veins. Without the thicker walls they are more prone to problems such as aneurysm and rupture.

          The loss of elastin comes primarily from the decline in stomach acid people tend to develop with age. This leads to less production and absorption of orthosilicic acid that is essential to the formation of collagen and elastin.

          “Hardening of the arteries” results from inflammation leading to the deposition of cholesterol that calcifies. One of the major factors that can lead to atherosclerosis is elevated homocysteine levels. And the most common causes of high homocysteine are low or absent stomach acid and hypothyroidism.

          Bottom line is that the arteries need to remain thick throughout our lives. And hardening of the arteries is really a separate issue from the natural and essential thickening of the arteries.

  6. says

    IMHO the Alkaline Diet is a bit of a problem when you get right down to trying it out.

    All foods have different acid and alkaline mineral content, but the charts most websites offer don’t take into account that many so-called alkaline foods also have large amounts of acid-forming minerals or substances. A banana is a perfect example. Although high in potassium, it’s also loaded with fructose, a highly acidifying form of fruit sugar.

    We’ve been helping people over come this difficulty for years now. First step was to find a good source of alkaline food lists. The only one we found was Dr Susan E Brown’s Acid Alkaline Food Guide, because she has based her easy-to-use lists on the work of Dr Russell Jaffe, who spent countless hours measuring the acid/alkaline balance of foods, but also ‘calibrating’ his findings based not just on pH but also on the biological effect of the particular acid or alkali.

    We designed our Alkaline Food Chart based on their work.

    So if you look at my lunch yesterday, that I absolutely enjoyed, by the way, it may not look particularly alkaline balancing.

    Let’s take a look at yesterday’s lunch!

    1. Cos lettuce picked straight from our garden: Medium alkalizer
    2. Wild caught Salmon: Medium acidic
    3. Kalamata Olives: Medium acid-forming. If I’d chosen green olives, they would have been medium alkaline forming.
    4. Tiny Tom tomatoes from the garden: Low acid forming.
    5. Cucumber from the Farmers’ Market: Low alkaline forming ability
    6. Fresh Snow peas: Low alkaline forming ability
    7. Cassie’s home made Mayo: Low acid forming.
    8. Dill Pickles: Medium alkaline forming
    (see it here: http://www.alkaway.com.au/blog/alkaline-lunch/)

    Now… looking at this, the simple way would be to say that I consumed a total of 4 alkaline forming foods, and three acid forming foods. But.. what about how MUCH I ate? And what about whether I am deficient in the minerals that are being replenished. We Aussies, for instance, are almost all deficient in Magnesium. So what looks simple isn’t simple at all. But there’s something else on my plate. Did you notice? Fresh Lime, straight from our own tree! Highly alkaline forming! So my quarter lime could have easily tipped the balance to alkalizing. We use either lime or lemon with almost every main meal. I have even trained my palate to use the squeezed lime as a mouth refresher after my meal. Wow! It’s amazing!

    Summarizing, my alkaline forming ‘secret strategies’ make it easier for me to avoid this balancing act. Here they are; the result of 15 years of deep and meaningful alkalizing. I just use lime and lemon any time I can, as often as I can, and I also consume leafy greens as often as I can.

    With Cassie’s support, and because I found I had severe osteoporosis, I’ve also eliminated the BIG acidifiers, sugar grains and bread, which also happen to be seriously addictive. Once my addiction eased up i found I was also eating far less, including meat. As an addict I would eat anything in front of me. Anytime. Anywhere. A walking vacuum cleaner. Now meat doesn’t ever become the big acidifier it can when you consume too much. Dr Susan Brown points out in her Guide that excess meat converts directly to acid and is stored in our fat!

    Raw? Vegetarian?
    I have watched some alkaline diet advocated who have somehow ‘arranged’ the alkaline science to suit their own diet preferences – usually raw or vegetarian. however a diet high in fresh fructose-laden fruit, especially juices, is an acid time bomb. Ask me – I was a vegetarian for 14 years and I directly attribute my osteoporosis to the diet. They are slowly coming around, leading em to wonder if they ever really examined thew science in detail.

    A Non-Radical Approach

    |So an alkaline diet doesn’t have to be radical. You can also supplement your food with alkaline electrolytes, or alkaline green powder which easily takes you up to the recommended 6 serves of green vegetables a day without the bulk. Cassie eventually gave our diet a name; The Alkaline Paleo diet, and although she doesn’t post much on her blog today, the info there is still excellent and still helping a lot of people.

    Water Support

    Of course, I support it with alkaline ionized water from our mighty UltraStream, but although it’s a great alkaline water producer, its great benefit is its ability to supply me with a constant supply of molecular hydrogen, which in turn (may) assist me with issues such as free radicals, inflammation and allergies. (and perhaps a huge amount more, according to the 400+ studies!) I sincerely believe that any diet without good hydration is like having a good car with bad oil. Dumb and dumber.

    • James says

      The first problem with your comment is that as has been pointed out so many times there is no such thing as an alkaline forming food. ALL foods, including those incorrectly considered “alkaline forming” are metabolized in to acids in the body. So it does not matter if you are eating eating cucumbers or candy bars they will all be metabolized in to acids.

      This is one of the reasons that diet does not alkalize the blood. Blood pH is maintained primarily by respiration followed by kidney excretion or retention of hydrogen ions. These account for virtually all the pH regulation in the body. Diet has virtually no effect.

      As for the comment on the ionized water there are some problems with the statement.

      First of all the alkaline water is a free radical source, not antioxidant. Alkaline ionized water is formed by the electrolysis of water with minerals in it. On the alkaline side the hydroxyl (OH) radical binds with the minerals in the water forming caustic mineral (metal) hydroxides such as calcium hydroxide, magnesium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide, etc. Hydroxides are not safe to ingest or even get on the tissues because they dangerously neutralize stomach acid and hydroxides chemically burn the tissues. Magnesium hydroxide for example is used as a laxative because it chemically burns the intestinal wall. This leads to an influx of water in to the intestines and increased peristalsis. Bags of calcium hydroxide used to make cement among other things have clear warnings not to allow contact with the tissues since again it can burn the tissues. Potassium hydroxide (Drano) and sodium hydroxide (Red Devil Lye) also have these same warnings due to severe chemical burns they can cause to the tissues. So I find it hard to phantom that anyone would recommend ingesting these dangerous chemicals and do so while falsely claiming ionized alkaline water is health promoting. How can chemicals that repeatedly burn the tissues increasing the risk of diseases like cancer be considered healthy by any means?

      As these mineral hydroxides disassociate they re-create the hydroxyl radical, which is a free radical.

      This free radical is damaging to the cells and IS NOT antioxidant. Anti-oxidant means “anti-oxygen”. The hydroxyl radical DOES NOT mop up singlet oxygen radicals. In other words it does not form HO2.

      It is the acidic water, not the alkaline water, that provides molecular hydrogen that mops up the oxygen radicals. In other works: H (molecular hydrogen) + H (molecular hydrogen) + O (singlet oxygen radical) forms H2O (water).

      Therefore, the ionized alkaline water is a dangerous and disease forming free radical source while the acid water is antioxidant.

      • says

        There are no hydroxyl radicals produced in the alkaline side. It is hydroxide (OH-) ions that are produced.

        At a low pH 8-10 the hydroxide ions do not bind to the those minerals, except for a small amount that makes up some of the white flakes in the water (although that is primarily carbonates)…mineral hydroxides are only toxic when at a molar concentration above 0.01 M or so, not 0.0001 pH 12 vs10, respectively.

        • James says

          Ian Hamilton: “There are no hydroxyl radicals produced in the alkaline side. It is hydroxide (OH-) ions that are produced.”

          Incorrect. Hydroxyl radicals are formed from the disassociation of the mineral hydroxides that are formed when the water is split by electrolysis to make the alkaline water.

          Ian Hamilton: “At a low pH 8-10 the hydroxide ions do not bind to the those minerals, except for a small amount that makes up some of the white flakes in the water (although that is primarily carbonates)”

          First of all a pH of 8 to 10 IS NOT “low”. Those are high pH levels.

          Secondly, the hydroxide group does in fact bind to the minerals. I hate to say it but this is very basic chemistry. Ever hear the term “opposites attract”? The negatively charged hydroxyl group needs to be balanced. So it binds to the positively charged metals from the minerals such as sodium, potassium, calcium and magnesium forming the corresponding mineral (metal) hydroxides.

          And these DO NOT form white flakes as is being claimed. These hydroxides are water soluble. To form white flakes they would either have to insoluble or the water supersaturated with the mineral (metal) hydroxides to allow them to precipitate out.

          And how could they be carbonates? Where are the carbonates coming from? They would had to have been in the water to begin with such as calcium and magnesium carbonates. So this brings up the very obvious question, if these carbonates were insoluble why were they not in the water to begin with before the electrolysis?

          Ian Hamilton: “mineral hydroxides are only toxic when at a molar concentration above 0.01 M or so, not 0.0001 pH 12 vs10, respectively.”

          First of all source on your claim?

          Secondly, studies showing the mineral hydroxide content of various ionized alkaline waters for an average.

          And finally, what SPECIFICALLY are you deeming to be toxicity? In other words SPECIFICALLY what side effects from the toxicity?

          • says

            Just a few points:

            ….. If you Google “electrolysis of water” you will see that it is OH- hydroxides that are produced are not toxic hydroxyl (OH) radicals

            ….pH 8 -10 is relatively low compared pH 12-14.

            ….Some people’s home water has a pH near 10

            ….if mineral hydroxides are soluble then they don’t bind to each other, if they do then they are called insoluble. Again google that.

            …. wikipedia. …the carbonates are coming from the tap water, their is always some dissolved CO2, which forms CO3^2- and HCO3-, their solubility is a function of pH and as the pH increases they bind to calcium to form insoluble calcium carbonate, which is the white flakes. …

            James, I’ve followed your posts over the last months. You have a good mind and good knowledge in your specialities. I won’t be posting on this again.

            • James says

              Ian hamilton: “Just a few points:

              ….. If you Google “electrolysis of water” you will see that it is OH- hydroxides that are produced are not toxic hydroxyl (OH) radicals”

              Read what I said again because that is not what I said. As we can see I CLEARY stated:

              “Hydroxyl radicals are formed from the disassociation of the mineral hydroxides that are formed when the water is split by electrolysis to make the alkaline water.”

              So I DID NOT say that the hydroxyl radicals were formed from the electrolysis. What I pointed out was that the negatively charged hydroxyl group formed during electrolysis is attracted to the positively charged metals from the minerals in the water forming mineral (metal) hydroxides. These dangerous, caustic hydroxides are what make this disease promoting water alkaline. It is the disassociation of these mineral hydroxides that form the dangerous hydroxyl radical making the alkaline water a free radical source.

              And again, for this water to be antioxidant the water would have to react with oxygen radicals neutralizing them. But the dangerous free radical, the hydroxyl radical DOES NOT do this since we cannot form O2H (O+OH). The antioxidant properties of electrolyzed water would come from the ACID water, which contains reactive hydrogen that reacts with reactive hydrogen to form water. Thus H+H+O forms H2O otherwise known as water.

              Ian Hamilton: “….pH 8 -10 is relatively low compared pH 12-14. ”

              I almost fell out of my chair laughing when I red this. What a way to stretch things to cover up a major error. By your same reasoning we could say that a pH of 1 or 2 is “relatively low” compared to a pH of 12 to 14. But my statement stands, a pH of 8 to 10 ins widely accepted as being a HIGH pH value, not a low one.

              Ian Hamilton: “….Some people’s home water has a pH near 10″

              And?!!!! So what? Naturally alkaline waters are alkaline due to naturally occurring carbonates, not dangerous caustic and free radical providing mineral (metal) hydroxides.

              Ian Hamilton: “….if mineral hydroxides are soluble then they don’t bind to each other, if they do then they are called insoluble. Again google that.”

              Again, you missed my point. The mineral (metal) hydroxides in ionized alkaline water are SOLUBLE!!! Look up the solubility of sodium, potassium, calcium and magnesium hydroxides. All can be dissolved in water in small amounts.

              Yes, you can get precipitate if enough hydroxide is ADDED to supersaturate the water or if you use a cobalt, iron or aluminum hydroxides, which are insoluble. Of course I never mentioned those last three hydroxides.

              Ian Hamilton: “…. wikipedia. …the carbonates are coming from the tap water, their is always some dissolved CO2, which forms CO3^2- and HCO3-, their solubility is a function of pH and as the pH increases they bind to calcium to form insoluble calcium carbonate, which is the white flakes. ”

              But in your original statement you said “At a low pH 8-10 the hydroxide ions do not bind to the those minerals, except for a small amount that makes up some of the white flakes in the water”.

              And I reponded:

              “And these DO NOT form white flakes as is being claimed. These hydroxides are water soluble. To form white flakes they would either have to insoluble or the water supersaturated with the mineral (metal) hydroxides to allow them to precipitate out.”

              So the primary question is how can these white flakes be the mineral hydroxides when they are soluble in the water in those amounts? The question still stands.

              Then I went on to say:

              “And how could they be carbonates? Where are the carbonates coming from? They would had to have been in the water to begin with such as calcium and magnesium carbonates. So this brings up the very obvious question, if these carbonates were insoluble why were they not in the water to begin with before the electrolysis?”

              You kind of answered that question with a reasonable answer I was hoping you would answer since this provides the evidence to what could be yet another danger to ionized alkaline water.

              Now, as you pointed out the solubility of this calcium salt decreases with increasing pH, which is true. Therefore, using the reasoning by the ionized alkaline water supporters, if their claims were true that drinking this water actually alkalizes the blood then this would also mean that the higher alkalinity would decrease the solubility of calcium salts in the body leading to calcifications. For example, calcified arterial plaque, bone spurs, calcified gallstones, etc. So thanks for answering that question so that everyone will know that the claims by the alkaline water supporters claiming the water is alkalizing is either bogus or the water can lead to disease causing calcifications in the body.

              Ian Hamilton: “I won’t be posting on this again.”

              Oh, but we are making so much progress discrediting ionized alkaline water. Don’t give up yet. There are still more questions on of your claims I am still waiting for answers on. You have not backed up these claims you made yet:

              Ian Hamilton: “mineral hydroxides are only toxic when at a molar concentration above 0.01 M or so, not 0.0001 pH 12 vs10, respectively.”

              First of all source on your claim?

              Secondly, studies showing the mineral hydroxide content of various ionized alkaline waters for an average.

              And finally, what SPECIFICALLY are you deeming to be toxicity? In other words SPECIFICALLY what side effects from the toxicity?

              Don’t leave us hanging Ian, we need evidence and answers to your claims!!!

  7. Karen says

    Interesting reading…any suggestions for an AB+ kidney transplant recipient, non diabetic, seeking to provide kidney longevity through diet & not giving kidneys more stress through acidic diet? I am strongly considering an alkaline diet vegan life change.

    • James says

      As for diet more foods high in silica such as oat bran or rice bran and foods high in natural vitamin C such as papaya, kiwis, mangoes, berries, etc.

      The herb nettle leaf is also highly supportive of the kidneys and is not an issue with the anti-rejection drugs,

  8. Andrew says

    Dear James

    Brilliantly explained
    Keep it up but I’m afraid there is no educating or convincing some people

    really nicely explained

    • James says

      Thanks Andrew.

      I agree, some people will never figure it out. But there are those who will listen and will research the claims. Then hopefully they will start spreading the correct information and the correct information will start to snowball drowning out the bogus “alkaline diet” misinformation.

  9. gh says

    Forget about blood ph. People should be looking at saliva and urine ph and how they relate to health. People with systemic chronic illnesses have more acidic saliva and urine. Pathogens produce the acid present in the saliva and urine of people who are significantly acidic long term – directly and indirectly. Taking bicarb does over time have a similar effect on the pathogens involved as antimicrobials do – they do not thrive in an alkaline environment and their numbers decrease. Yes, the typical alkaline diet will provide better nutrition than the average diet.
    Though I would like to see some studies of blood ph in seriously chronically ill people vs healthy people to see how well the body’s buffering systems keep up. Not much point in arguing about blood ph without knowing that.

    • James says

      Salivary and urinary pH are not a reflection of blood pH.

      Salivary pH actually tells us very little. Salivary pH is affected by the amount of bacteria in the mouth so things such as brushing your teeth will make the saliva more alkaline. So will drinking water, thinking of certain foods, etc. Dry mouth increases acidity as alkaline saliva normally washes away acid forming bacteria in the mouth.

      Urinary pH is affected by hydration levels, certain supplements and medications and by bacteria in the urine. Urinary tract infections lead to highly alkaline urine as the bacteria use the enzyme urease to split urea in to highly alkaline ammonia. The alkalinity helps the bacteria, as with most pathogens, to survive.

      Ingesting baking soda (sodium bicarbonate) does not really alkalize the blood in most cases and even if it does it is very temporary. Ingesting baking soda can actually cause acidosis since as it reacts with the stomach acid it forms carbonic acid and sodium chloride. Carbonic acid can cause acidosis as well as excess sodium chloride, which can cause hyperchloremic acidosis.

      Another common myth is that most pathogens cannot survive in an alkaline environment. Actually most pathogens cannot survive in an acidic environment and thrive in an alkaline environment. Look at H. pylori bacteria, which secrete highly alkaline and highly toxic ammonia to neutralize stomach acid and protect themselves. In addition, roles of both stomach acid and the acids produced by the beneficial bacteria that inhabit our bodies is to destroy pathogens. Same reason people exposed to food poisoning pathogens are more prone to the pathogens when they have low stomach acid and acid producing flora.

      The acid producing flora also keeps Candida under control. These acids turn off the Candida growth gene and keep the Candida in its benign yeast form. When the flora numbers are decreased the environment becomes alkaline turning on the Candida growth gene and morphing the Candida in to its pathogenic fungal form (candidiasis). It is in this fungal form that the Candida forms finger-like projections known as hyphae that allow the Candida to dig in to tissues causing damage and inflammation.

  10. Trish says

    Please advise on the following info: “Osteoporosis Around the World: Throughout the world, the incidence of osteoporosis correlates directly with animal protein intake. The greater the intake of protein, the more common and more severe will be the osteoporosis. In fact, world health statistics show that osteoporosis is most common in exactly those countries where dairy products are consumed in the largest quantities – the United States, Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Nathan Pritikin studied the medical research on osteoporosis, and found no basis at all for the Dairy Council viewpoint:
    African Bantu women take in only 350 mg. of calcium per day. They bear nine children during their lifetime and breast feed them for two years. They never have calcium deficiency, seldom break a bone, rarely lose a tooth… How can they do that on 350 mg. of calcium a day when the (National Dairy Council) recommendation is 1200 mg.? It’s very simple. They’re on a low-protein diet that doesn’t kick the calcium out of the body’.
    At the other end of the scale from the Bantus are the native Eskimos. If osteoporosis were a calcium deficiency disease it would be unheard of among these people. They have the highest dietary calcium intake of any people in the world – more than 2000 mg. a day from fish bones. Their diet is also the very highest in the world in protein – 250 to 400 grams a day. The native Eskimo people have one of the very highest rates of osteoporosis in the world.
    In March, 1983, the Journal of Clinical Nutrition reported the results of the largest study of this kind ever undertaken. Researchers in Michigan State and other major universities found that, by the age of 65 in the United States:
    •Male vegetarians had an average measurable bone loss of 3%
    • Male meat-eaters had an average measurable bone loss of 7%
    • Female vegetarians had an average measurable bone loss of 18%
    • Female meat-eaters had an average measurable bone loss of 35%
    This is from the website Food Maters.

  11. Martha says

    Hey Chris,

    I love your blogs and I find them really informative and I loved the studies. I’m an almost RD, and so I’m familiar with ketoacidosis, which I know is what happens in type 1 diabetics who neglect to use their insulin. In the case of the diabetic, their blood sugar spikes, cells starve, hydroxy butyrate (ketones) are formed, but again, ketones aren’t taken into the blood, and they are acidify the blood…causing acidosis. I can’t remember how they acidify, I keep visualizing my notes from medical nutrition and keep thinking they are broken down, released H+, but I can’t remember the little details. In this case, why do the kidneys not balance Ph? Is it just an overload they can’t handle? Also, if you’ve seen the documentary forks over knives you know all about anti meat because of the carboxylic acid of the protein: again, why does eating more meat (intaking more carboxylic acid) not effect serum Ph in the same way? I’m always learning new things in nutrition, and I’ve decided I’ll be reading articles and studies until (or after) I retire -thanks

  12. edna says

    I have donated a kidney to my son 7 years ago. A couple of years post transplant I have developed a few health issues like high blood pressure, elevated cholesterol , weight gain etc.
    The kidney specialist suggested to start with medications. I decided to reverse my health issues by following a vegan lifestyle, and I make sure the urine is never than 8.
    All the issues have been reversed.
    I run a wholistic clinic, and I witnesses many reversals with clients following the Alkaliney lifestyle. E.g. cancer, diabitis, auto immune diseases, shrinking of fibroids etc etc etc.
    I also read Dr. Colin Campbell book “The China Study” and it confirmed my beliefts. I do believe that by not touching any animal protein, I am allowing my one and only kidney to have an easier time filtering all the toxins, and the results are my best witness.
    Thank you.

    • Paleo Huntress says

      Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or my-side bias) is a tendency for people to favor information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses regardless of whether the information is true. As a result, people gather evidence and recall information from memory selectively, and interpret it in a biased way.

      They also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and/or recall have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a stronger weighting for data encountered early in an arbitrary series) and illusory correlation (in which people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).

      https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Confirmation_bias.html

  13. James says

    Teresa: “Yet again James , you have missed the point. You try and speak so knowledgeably and yet you know so little.”

    I actually know a whole lot more than you think including how the body REALLY works.

    Teresa: “This is a common side effect the first time you start an alkaline diet. ”

    There is NO such thing as an alkaline diet as has been explained in depth numerous times.

    Teresa: “My body and particularly my head was just emptying itself of all the toxins I had accumulated over the years. ”

    The fact that you actually believe that shows how little you really know about the body.

    Teresa: “All my life I used to get colds and particularly sinus attacks every single winter but since taking alkaline water I have been completely sinus free after that first detox.”

    Have you ever heard of placebo effect? See:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6r9U-tbKAM

    You cannot predict when a cold will happen. The fact that you tell yourself you only get colds during the winter, but not during the rest of the year when they can still happen leads to believe that they are most likely psychosomatic rather than viral.

    • Laura Schoenfeld says

      NOTE: We will not be approving any more of these comments that contain personal attacks and insults.

      James, Paleo Huntress, Teresa, Guest, and whoever else is involved in this debate: please move your conversation elsewhere. Chris’s website is not a forum for people to verbally attack each other over the internet.

      If anyone involved in this discussion continues to post in this manner, I’ll have no choice but to ban you from the site, so please keep this in mind when writing comments in the future.

  14. James says

    Teresa: “Eighteen months ago, I bought a quality ioniser that is attached to my main water tap – I can get four levels of water in varying degrees of alkalinity or just plain filtered water.
    When I first started using it, I seemed to have what appeared to be like a heavy head cold, very phlegmy and sinusy. That lasted for over a month, but then that cleared up and so do my acid reflux, and happily I haven’t had a head cold either for well over a year now which is very unusual for me.”

    It took over a month for what you think was a heavy head cold to clear up? Usually they take a lot less time to clear up on their own. Sounds like the water slowed down the normal healing process quite a bit.

    • Teresa says

      Yet again James , you have missed the point. You try and speak so knowledgeably and yet you know so little.
      This is a common side effect the first time you start an alkaline diet. My body and particularly my head was just emptying itself of all the toxins I had accumulated over the years. All my life I used to get colds and particularly sinus attacks every single winter but since taking alkaline water I have been completely sinus free after that first detox.
      But of course this isn’t what you want to hear is it? You just go on blindly believing that everything you say is correct and the naysayers must all be talking rubbish.
      Why don’t you try it for a while and see how you feel? You never know you might actually find it works.

  15. Teresa says

    While James et al battle away on this subject, all I know is that I suffered from acid reflux for fifteen years until I started drinking alkaline water. Result? No more acid reflux. You figure it out.

    • Michele says

      Okay. Now we are getting somewhere! Can you tell me what exactly is alkaline water. Be specific. Thanks.

      • Teresa says

        Eighteen months ago, I bought a quality ioniser that is attached to my main water tap – I can get four levels of water in varying degrees of alkalinity or just plain filtered water.
        When I first started using it, I seemed to have what appeared to be like a heavy head cold, very phlegmy and sinusy. That lasted for over a month, but then that cleared up and so do my acid reflux, and happily I haven’t had a head cold either for well over a year now which is very unusual for me.
        You can only speak as you find, and I know I wouldn’t be without my alkaline water now.

    • James says

      Teresa: “While James et al battle away on this subject, all I know is that I suffered from acid reflux for fifteen years until I started drinking alkaline water. Result? No more acid reflux. You figure it out.”

      Not hard to figure out. The caustic mineral hydroxides in the ionized alkaline water will neutralize stomach acid just like Tums, which is not caustic like ionized alkaline waters. This covers up the symptoms of acid reflux, but DOES NOT correct the underlying problem. In fact, it make the underlying condition worse since low stomach acid leads to acid reflux from decreased digestion and increased fermentation.

      In the long run the use of ionized alkaline waters will really screw up digestion really bad as the neutralization of stomach acid inhibits proper nutrient absorption. This includes the vitamins B6, B12 and folate that are all acid dependent for absorption. Decreased absorption of these nutrients interferes with the production of the methyl donor SAMe. Among the numerous functions of methylation there are DNA repair to prevent cancer, reduction of heart disease, hormone formation, breakdown of excess hormones, neurotransmitter formation, allergy reduction, proper immune function, cartilage formation, etc. in fact, there are about 4,000 methylation reactions in the body.

      Another important function of methylation is the formation of stomach acid. Therefore, when people ignorantly neutralize or block stomach acidity such as by drinking the caustic ionized alkaline water they actually put themselves at risk for numerous diseases and disorders. To make matters worse methylation is also required for stomach acid formation. Therefore, when a person neutralizes their stomach acid they are actually inhibiting the formation of more stomach acid, which further decreases stomach acid………. All the time they continue putting their health at greater risk do to the decreased methylation and from the chemical burning from the caustic mineral hydroxides in the water and tissue damage from the hydroxyl radicals these mineral hydroxides disassociate in to.

      Stomach acid is also required for the proper absorption of zinc as well, which is a required catalyst for the production of stomach acid.

      People may feel better initially due to becoming hydrated, by covering up symptoms such as with acid reflux or simply placebo effect. I have also seen where people have added supplements to their regime that could account for alleviating their symptoms but gave credit to the ionized alkaline water that could not have anything to do with alleviating their symptoms.

      People just want so hard to believe that ionized alkaline water is a cure all or is going to improve their health. Especially if they were duped in to buying one of those quack, overpriced and over-hyped water ionizers.

      If they would do their homework first though they would realize some important facts such as:

      -You CANNOT alter the blood pH with ionized alkaline water unless you first dangerously overwhelm the stomach acid and the body’s pH buffering systems.

      Even if they manage to do this the induced alkalosis will lead to more problems as minor alkalosis constricts blood vessels leading to decreased circulation and increased blood pressure. Alkalosis also inhibits oxygen release from hemoglobin leading to decreased tissue oxygenation leading to all sorts of health risks.

      -Ionized alkaline water contains caustic mineral hydroxides that make the water alkaline. These hydroxides can include potassium hydroxide sold as Drano, sodium hydroxide sold as Red Devil Lye, calcium hydroxide sold as lime used to make cement and magnesium hydroxide sold as Milk of Magnesia used as a laxative because it chemically burns the intestinal wall leading to a water influx in to the intestines and increased peristalsis. People really want to drink this crap?!!!!

      • Teresa says

        James, you are wrongly assuming that I put nothing in my stomach apart from alkaline water, which is absolutely not true.
        I supplement two large glasses of ordinary water a day for alkaline water. the rest of the time I drink filtered water, Green or Jasmine tea, almond milk, red wine and such like.
        I would rather treat acid reflux that way than the proton-pump inhibitors that Doctors give out like Smarties.
        I was diagnosed osteo-porotic five years ago, and was told to take bio-phosphates, which once I researched I refused to take any more.
        What with the above medications, and now we are all meant to be on Statins for the rest of our lives, the medical profession is probably doing a better job of killing us all off than a couple of glasses of alkaline water a day.

        • James says

          Teresa: “James, you are wrongly assuming that I put nothing in my stomach apart from alkaline water, which is absolutely not true.”

          I did not assume anything. Why would I think for example that you would not put food in your stomach?

          What else you put in your stomach is irrelevant though to my points about the dangers of ionized alkaline water such as the caustic nature, the radicals formed, the inhibition of nutrient absorption from the other things you do put in your stomach, etc.

          Teresa: “I would rather treat acid reflux that way than the proton-pump inhibitors that Doctors give out like Smarties.”

          Proton pump inhibitors DO NOT treat acid reflux, they mask the symptoms just like ionized alkaline water. And both PPIs and ionized alkaline water make the underlying condition worse in the process.

          If you want to learn about acid reflux and how to actually treat it then read this:

          http://medcapsules.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=2632

          Teresa: “I was diagnosed osteo-porotic five years ago, and was told to take bio-phosphates, which once I researched I refused to take any more.”

          You are referring to bisphosphonates, which also do not treat osteoporosis and are well known for increasing the risk of fractures among other side effects.

          Osteoporosis is the result of collagen loss in the bone decreasing mineral deposition sites. The main reasons for loss of bone collagen are lack of ascorbic acid and/or orthosilicic acid.

          Bisphosphonate drugs, such as Boniva and Evista, basically kill cells that break down bone inhibiting the bone remodeling process needed for healthy bone. This leads to “rotten” bone that the drugs then “plaster” minerals to. In the long run the bone loses strength and flexibility leading to an increased risk of fractures.

          Alkaline ionized water can make matters worse b inhibiting mineral proper mineral absorption as well as inhibiting proper protein digestion needed for collagen formation.

          Statins are a joke. See:

          http://medreview.wordpress.com/2007/06/06/why-statins-and-low-cholesterol-cause-heart-attacks-and-strokes/

          If you really want to get cholesterol down see:

          http://www.medcapsules.com/info/Heart_Disease.htm

  16. Michele says

    I really wish you guys would stop with the obsessive-compulsive arguments-personality conflicts going on here in this thread. I am getting 15-30 emails a day of you guys which is useless to me.

    • James says

      Sorry, but people get accurate health information for health and safety overrides your slight inconvenience.

      You can do as I do and leave the e-mail in place. This will accumulate most if not all the responses in one e-mail then when done you can delete it.

  17. bean says

    To james,

    again, what u used isnt real science. A lot are unproven and far fetched. everyone please read from the very beginning, while i only started to get aggressive after more than 10 comments, james have been aggressive ever since the start.

    the thing that made me furious is that he said what i said is wrong and bogus and use assumptions and speculations, while he himself admitted that he cant prove me wrong, and he himself uses lots of speculations which is solely based on his own understandings. Worst is that lots of his speculations cant be found on the internet, while mine can.

    • James says

      Bean: “again, what u used isnt real science. A lot are unproven and far fetched. everyone please read from the very beginning, while i only started to get aggressive after more than 10 comments, james have been aggressive ever since the start.”

      Providing facts is not being aggressive. And again, this blog article is not about me. Trying to discredit me with your lies is aggressive. So I am asking you again, stay on topic about the acid-alkaline myth and stop trying to make this personal.

      Bean: “the thing that made me furious is that he said what i said is wrong and bogus and use assumptions and speculations, while he himself admitted that he cant prove me wrong”

      I did not say I could not prove you wrong. In fact, I have proven you wrong a number of times. But again, you are being aggressive by trying to make this personal.

      Bean: “and he himself uses lots of speculations which is solely based on his own understandings. Worst is that lots of his speculations cant be found on the internet, while mine can.”

      Thanks for saving me the time of proving how you keep lying. If the claims I am making cannot be verified on the internet then how was I so easily able to find medical studies in a matter of minutes backing what I said? You yourself claimed you could not find anything, anywhere on the internet backing the fact that osteoporosis is caused from a collagen loss. So given your lack of research skills I am not surprised at all that you cannot find any real research backing either of our claims. Just because you are incapable of finding readily available research though, this does not mean it does not exist.

      As for your “evidence”, propaganda sites claiming what you want to hear IS NOT evidence. For example, show us the medical research proving that long term ingestion of foods claimed to be acid forming induce acidosis as you keep implying. Let’s see if there really is any evidence to back your claims as you just claimed here.

  18. bean says

    To james,

    this is about the statistic part.

    james: “Statistics only prove what the person wants to prove. This is why statistics are such a popular alternative to real research since real research is much harder to manipulate or misinterpret.

    For example, if people really look deep in to the issue the longest lived people in the world have better health not due to diet, but rather the least stress. Stress will kill a person much faster than bad diet anyday.”

    so i guess what u are saying is that stress kills part has a more concrete study and evidence, rather than healthy diet leads to a healthy life then. This is your BS “real science”. no real prove.

    and i need u to clarify on another thing. you are saying that statistics done by a lot of people in the world are manipulated and changed to their advantage ?
    and i will need u to give eg. of which statistics done are like that please.

    the 1st 1 i take it as you say that selectively chose 6 good results out of 100 results yea ?

    please clarify that u, james sloane, said all these stuffs.

  19. bean says

    To james,

    DUDE, the only thing that i have been wrong is when i didnt explain that stomach acids does other functions, as i think its not really relevant to the main topic. THE REST OF THE STUFFS WE BEEN DISCUSSING, U YOURSELF ADMITTED THAT U CANT PROVE IT TO BE WRONG OR RIGHT EITHER.

    mots of the stuffs u posted are NOT real science. It is based on your understandings and its NOT PROVEN SCIENCE.

    As for the osteoporosis stuffs, scroll above for my reply, what u gave me about the collagen stuffs is NEVER been 100% proven, and the study done on ncbi is totally wrong if realize those condition set by the researcher him/herself will cause loss in minerals itself. U are and old man but u argues like a child.

    james : “There is yet more I could have found, but again it is not my job to do your homework for you. As we can all see though I base my statements on known scientific fact while Bean relies on speculation and poor or absent research skills.”

    BS. you said u treat people the way they treat you. TOTAL BS. scroll up and see from the 1st comment i made till now. Did i ever sound so offensive like u ?

    Everyone who is seeing this post now, please search for the reason why osteoporosis happen. While i gave the simplest explanation, which is accepted worldwide ( loss of mineral density), james gave an explanation which is loss of collagen (which i found out that it is result of loss of mineral density that leads to it)

    search and tell this james to his face who is using speculations and who is using “real science” .

    • James says

      Bean: “DUDE, the only thing that i have been wrong is when i didnt explain that stomach acids does other functions, as i think its not really relevant to the main topic. THE REST OF THE STUFFS WE BEEN DISCUSSING, U YOURSELF ADMITTED THAT U CANT PROVE IT TO BE WRONG OR RIGHT EITHER.”

      First of all my names is not “DUDE”. So don’t refer to me that way.

      Secondly, yes the stomach acid issue is relevant since people attempting to alkalize often dangerously neutralize their stomach acid putting themselves at risk for various health problems.

      And as I said before what I have said is backed by REAL science, not assumptions like you rely on. This is why you have to discredit anything I have said with any real research. That is not the same as claiming something cannot be proven.

      Bean: “As for the osteoporosis stuffs, scroll above for my reply, what u gave me about the collagen stuffs is NEVER been 100% proven, and the study done on ncbi is totally wrong if realize those condition set by the researcher him/herself will cause loss in minerals itself.”

      LOL!!!! You could not even find any studies anywhere on the internet with all the time you have available to argue. I find several studies backing this within a couple of minutes. If you are not smart enough to even find these studies then you clearly are not smart enough to understand them.

      I also noticed how you tried to manipulate what was said in the first study and keep completely ignoring the second study, which also proves my point.

      Bean: “BS. you said u treat people the way they treat you. TOTAL BS. scroll up and see from the 1st comment i made till now. Did i ever sound so offensive like u ?”

      Here is one: “i guess u really just want to win in every argument” from July 31. In your post you claimed I argue like a child since you cannot counter anything I said with real evidence. Instead you have argued from the start using assumptions but no REAL evidence to back your claims.

      But again, this blog IS NOT about me. When people try to keep going off topic making it about the messenger instead of the message they do this because they have no REAL evidence to present. So they try attacking the messenger instead to divert attention away from their ignorance of the subject. I have seen you try to make this about me a number of times and have yet to provide even one piece of solid evidence to back your claims proving my point.

      Bean: “Everyone who is seeing this post now, please search for the reason why osteoporosis happen. While i gave the simplest explanation, which is accepted worldwide ( loss of mineral density), james gave an explanation which is loss of collagen (which i found out that it is result of loss of mineral density that leads to it)”

      Mineral loss IS NOT the cause, it is a result. Again learn some anatomy and physiology!!! And the studies I provided back this fact. Just because you tried to distort what the one study said and keep ignoring the second study this does not change that fact. Again, mineral loss from bone result in ostoepenia and osteomalacia, not osteoporosis. The lack of collagen matrix reduces mineral binding sites thus decreasing bone density. Since the minerals cannot bind they get eliminated if not useable elsewhere to prevent other health issues such as the side effects of hypercalcemia.

    • bean says

      Of course i coudnt find any, because its so few and maybe non-existent.

      i did not manipulate your 2nd study. Your 2nd stdy TOTALLY did not support what u claimed to be real science. It says it is loss of mineral density and MAY BE associated with loss of collagen. i really dont know how u can totally ignore the 1st part of the stdy saying its loss of minerals and keep on clinging on to the “may be” part. I feel its really stupid to continue saying osteoporosis is loss of collagen just because u found a website stating that “it may be associated with loss of collagen”

      i wrote that because u did it. u does argue like a child. and if u see the time correctly, it was all posted on the same day by me ( same as the day i said u didnt treat ppl the same way others treat u ), because i read what u wrote which is way way more offensive than mine, way before i posted these. Check the time and date beside and compare with your own comments please.

      AGAIN…. u failed to prove it. and again, u use the word “real science”. i am really fed up with u james. i am done with arguing on this topic with u. Everyone can judge this case ( whether osteoporosis is loss of minerals or loss of collagen ) . Not that i really cared about it anymore.

      • James says

        Bean: “Of course i coudnt find any, because its so few and maybe non-existent”

        That only proves your poor research skills. I found two studies in less than two minutes proving my point. Just because you keep twisting what the first study said and keep ignoring the second study altogether, this DOES NOT make them wrong. Only you.

        If I spent hours searching like you probably did then I would have found a lot more. But the fact that I was able to find those tow studies with hardly any effort proves my point about your poor research skills.

        From the first study you keep deliberately keep ignoring ” A primary loss of collagen in osteoporotic bones is an essential prediction of the hypothesis; in fact this loss is well established but, inexplicably, it has been assumed to be secondary to the bone loss”. No wonder you keep ignoring this study since it backs what I have said all along and says the exact opposite of what you keep trying to falsely claim. And from the second study which you keep trying to twist what was said “The high remodeling rate is associated
        with decreased bone mineralization”. Wow, not a loss of minerals from bone as you keep falsely claiming, but a lack of bone mineralization as I have said all along. And again, the lack of bone mineralization is the result of a lack of bone collagen decreasing mineral binding sites. So you can keep trying to twist what the studies have proven all you want. All that will prove is how desperate you are and to what lengths you will go to in order to make it appear you have a clue what you are talking about.

        Of course I am still waiting for a rational response from the person who thought water was food, glucose was an acid and that amino acids and alkaline ammonia are the same thing among other ludicrous thoughts.

        By the way, still waiting for you answer how it is that athletes maintain bone density despite the high protein diets you claim are acid forming.

        Actually you have ignored all my questions for you as well as requests to provide REAL evidence to your claims. Not surprising since you keep making stuff up rather than rely on real science.

        Bean: “i did not manipulate your 2nd study. Your 2nd stdy TOTALLY did not support what u claimed to be real science. It says it is loss of mineral density and MAY BE associated with loss of collagen.”

        Thanks again for proving my point of how you are lying by twisting what was really said in the abstract. I ran a search for what you are claiming was quoted from both abstracts to make sure I did not miss what you claim. Guess what? What you claim was said DOES NOT show up because that is not what was said. Instead the abstract CLEARLY states: “there is increasing evidence that a high remodeling with a negative bone balance induces bone loss and modification of the microarchitecture, such as decreased trabecular thickness and loss of connectivity, decreased cortical thickness, and increased cortical porosity. The high remodeling rate is associated with decreased bone mineralization “. So they mention “microarchitecture”, which refers to the collagen matrix, which is what gives bone much of its strength and allows bone to deal with forces. Then the abstract states “The high remodeling rate is associated with decreased bone mineralization “. Again, “decreased bone mineralization” backs what I have said all along and is the opposite of what you keep falsely claiming of mineral loss. Further in the abstract they state “An overhydroxylation of lysine residues and an overglycosylation of hydroxylysine have been reported [145–147], resulting in the formation of fibrils of small diameter [148] that may affect the collagen fiber’s ability to mineralize normally”. Wow, affecting the ability of the collagen fibers to mineralize normally just as I have been saying all along and just the opposite of your false claims you keep making by twisting what was really said.

        Bean: “i really dont know how u can totally ignore the 1st part of the stdy saying its loss of minerals and keep on clinging on to the “may be” part.”

        Because that IS NOT what the abstract says. You keep twisting what was said to mislead people to fit your needs. Again, here is the EXACT quote “The high remodeling rate is associated with decreased bone mineralization that may reduce bone stiffness and may be associated with a modification of the content of collagen crosslinks.”

        As we can see it DOES NOT state the result is a loss of minerals as you keep twisting things to make it appear as if that what was said. In fact, they CLEARLY state “decreased bone mineralization” as I have said all along, and NOTHING about mineral loss as you keep falsely claiming.

        This brings up another question I posed to you earlier that you also ignored. Since you keep harping on the word “may”, does decreased bone mineralization reduce bone stiffness or not? Stop ignoring the question just because answering it will blow the misleading word games you keep playing.

        Bean: “I feel its really stupid to continue saying osteoporosis is loss of collagen just because u found a website stating that “it may be associated with loss of collagen”

        Again, that is not what the abstracts said. Learn to read!!! Both studies back what I have been saying all along. And again, these are only the two studies I found in less that two minutes after you claimed to not having been able to find anything, anywhere on the internet. If I spent as much time as you did finding nothing I could find a lot more research backing this fact because unlike you I know how to do real research.

  20. bean says

    To james,

    stop claiming u have been giving real science
    lots of “facts” u given are not proven stuffs
    in fact, its what most of us never even heard before of. Its like u are better than those researchers doing researches.

    while i enjoy peoples’ feedback, infact i am searching for people like those to to correct what i may have understood wrongly, your feedbacks are really offensive and aggressive. AND YOU DO NOT TREAT PEOPLE THE WAY THEY TREAT YOU.

    scroll up and look at every comments between u and me, since the very start please.

    • James says

      Bean: “stop claiming u have been giving real science
      lots of “facts” u given are not proven stuffs
      in fact, its what most of us never even heard before of. Its like u are better than those researchers doing researches.”

      What researchers are backing your claims? And where is their research backing these claims since you have failed to produce any?

      • bean says

        i didnt claimed that it was from “real science” like u do.

        everything we have discussed until now, u have yet to prove me wrong. so stop saying its wrong.

        • James says

          Bean: “i didnt claimed that it was from “real science” like u do.”

          I did not say “real science” in the post you are responding to. I asked for “research”, which you failed to provide. So again you show your poor reading skills, which also explains why you kept misquoting the abstracts I provided proving osteoporosis was due to collagen loss, not mineral loss as you keep falsely claiming.

          Bean: “everything we have discussed until now, u have yet to prove me wrong. so stop saying its wrong.”

          LOL!!! I have proven you wrong numerous times. But you keep twisting what was said to make it appear that you were not wrong in the first place even though the solid evidence says otherwise.

  21. bean says

    of course i know alkalosis is also a disease. But due do the modern diet which is really “acidic” there’s virtually no way for our body to take in too much alkalies. Even if we do eat only veges which is really hard for aprrox 90% of the population of the world, we are only restoring our body to a more balance state which is the results of taking in net forming acidic food for decades. Do you think something which takes so long to have effect can be overturn by just taking in alkalies in a short time ?
    and while lots of different food are really really acidic, its not the same with alkaline forming food. Their alkalinity is not as strong as the acidity of the those food.

    James : “Again, if people would simply learn how the body really works then they would stop perpetuating these myths.”

    again if you would start opening your mind accept some of the facts, you might change your mind. NOT EVERYTHING U SAID IS PROVEN RIGHT EITHER.

    • James says

      Bean: “of course i know alkalosis is also a disease.”

      Clearly you did not, just like you did not know water is not a food. Funny though how every time I call you on your comments that prove you were unaware of these things that you all of a sudden claim that of course you knew that. If you did then why do you keep making such ridiculous statements to begin with?

      Bean: “But due do the modern diet which is really “acidic” there’s virtually no way for our body to take in too much alkalies.”

      Again, DIETS ARE NOT ACIDIC!!!!! Learn some real science and real anatomy and physiology!!!

      Bean: “Even if we do eat only veges which is really hard for aprrox 90% of the population of the world, we are only restoring our body to a more balance state which is the results of taking in net forming acidic food for decades.”

      Again, all MYTH!!!! In fact, how many naturally occurring acids are found in vegetables? A lot!!!! And again ALL foods, including vegetables are metabolized in to acids in the long run. There is NO such thing as an alkalizing food. As has been explained to you so many times the diet has virtually no effect on alkalizing the blood. How many times do you have to be told to learn some real chemistry and anatomy and physiology instead of just making crap up?

      Bean: “Do you think something which takes so long to have effect can be overturn by just taking in alkalies in a short time ?”

      If acidosis was cumulative like you imply and diets could really be acid forming as you also falsely claim then we would be dead in a short time from acidosis. Add learn some common sense along with real chemistry and anatomy and physiology.

      Bean: “and while lots of different food are really really acidic, its not the same with alkaline forming food.”

      You insist of repeating the same disproven garbage. I guess you will never realize the truth.

      Bean: “again if you would start opening your mind accept some of the facts, you might change your mind. NOT EVERYTHING U SAID IS PROVEN RIGHT EITHER”

      Then show me some facts rather than your assumptions. And if they are facts then back them with some real science instead of guessing.

      Also keep in mind that the things I have said are backed by real science. So far you have failed to provide any real evidence to prove anything I have claimed wrong. You just keep posting your assumptions of truth as evidence.

      • bean says

        To james,

        DUDE, i never once mention alkalosis until u mention that it is a disease too. Why should i claim i know that it is a disease too when i didnt even touch a topic about it.

        and DUDE again, i am not like u. I dont like to explain stuffs which most of the population already know. Everyone knows water is a drink and not food. And thus, i feel its stupid to explain it to u, given u are an educated man possibly much more than me, and it would insult u if i had to explain every single small detail like water is not food to u. If u want me to explain that way to u, i can gladly try to make it as simple as possible to reduce the stress of other readers reading completely useless stuffs they already known.

        • James says

          Bean: “i never once mention alkalosis until u mention that it is a disease too. Why should i claim i know that it is a disease too when i didnt even touch a topic about it.”

          You keep harping on acidosis being so dangerous. Clearly you are not aware that alkalosis is even more dangerous. And this is all on topic since we are discussing the acid-alkaline myth.

          Bean: “I dont like to explain stuffs which most of the population already know. ”

          Reality, you cannot explain what you know nothing about. It is that simple. Just like how you implied water was food, that sugar was an acid, that amino acids and alkaline ammonia are the same thing, etc. Maybe the general public is well aware of the differences but you clearly are not.

      • bean says

        To james,

        NOT ALL CHEMICAL COMPOSITION IN VEGES ARE METABOLIZED INTO ACIDS. get your “REAL SCIENCE” right 1st before you claim it to be a real science. BS. Again i have to stress here again, we are talking about NET forming. YOU are the one which is not acceptive to new ideas.

        OMG, how childish can u be ? that u feel the need to win argument of every sentence ? or u are just plain idiot. I CLEARLY meant these wont happen in a short time. and btw, FYI, acidosis is very dangerous and if not treated early enough, the acids would have done irreversible damages and cause problems with organ function, respiratory failure, and kidney failure. Severe acidosis can also cause shock or even death.

        common sense ? i think u are lacking a lot of it.

        yes, a lot of stuffs i said are my guesses or i would like to use the word hypothesis as u suggested to me. But bear in mind that its from real facts that these guesses are formed, and when one day it is proven, it will be a discovery.

        • James says

          Bean: “NOT ALL CHEMICAL COMPOSITION IN VEGES ARE METABOLIZED INTO ACIDS. get your “REAL SCIENCE” right 1st before you claim it to be a real science. ”

          More proof of how Bean twists what was REALLY said to fit his needs. NEVER did I claim that all the chemicals in vegetables were metabolized in to acids. What I have CLEARLY said over and over is the fact that ALL foods are eventually metabolized in to acids. This fact is not refutable. Proteins are broken down in to amino acids and eventually metabolized in to uric acid. Oils are metabolized in to fatty acids. The shorter chain sugars including those formed from starches are metabolized in to carbonic acid. The insoluble fibers (long chain sugar molecules) are fermented by the flora in to a variety of beneficial acids including lactic and acetic acids.

          Bean: “FYI, acidosis is very dangerous and if not treated early enough, the acids would have done irreversible damages and cause problems with organ function, respiratory failure, and kidney failure. Severe acidosis can also cause shock or even death.”

          Wow, you repeated the symptoms of acidosis I already posted for you!!! Nothing like riding on the coattails of someone that already knows what they are talking about to make yourself appear smart.

          But then you slid right back down in to Dunceville by ignoring the well known fact that acidosis is EXTREMELY rare. This despite the high consumption of foods that you falsely think are acid forming. Again, ALL foods are eventually metabolized in to acids. But the body uses respiration and kidney function as primary means to maintain the proper, necessary levels of acid in the blood while eliminating the rest. This is why acidosis is so rare regardless of what the propaganda sites you get your health information from claim.

          Bean: “yes, a lot of stuffs i said are my guesses or i would like to use the word hypothesis as u suggested to me. But bear in mind that its from real facts that these guesses are formed, and when one day it is proven, it will be a discovery.”

          Only IF it is ever proven. So far all the science has proven the alkalizing claims are completely bogus.

  22. Alan says

    Thanks everyone your comments have been incredibly helpful. I am more confused about this topic than I was when I first read the article. Mind numbing.

  23. bean says

    To james

    u deny alkaline theory so much but u supported ozone therapy which doesnt have evidence and scientific studies strong enough to back it up. The ozone therapy can cost their whole life-savings while the alkaline theory to help in cancer cost the same price as a meal. Ozone therapy also comes with many hazards and serious side effects which can kill the user.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10394090/Ozone-therapy-endangered-patients-life-court-hears.html

    i really dont understand why u deny alkaline diet theory so much
    and u yourself admitted that u cant prove it to be wrong either

    • James says

      Bean: “u deny alkaline theory so much”

      It is not a theory, it is a hypothesis. A theory has evidence backing it.

      Bean: “but u supported ozone therapy which doesnt have evidence and scientific studies strong enough to back it up”

      Says who? Have you even bothered looking at the research and the chemistry backing ozone? Clearly not!!!

      Bean: “The ozone therapy can cost their whole life-savings while the alkaline theory to help in cancer cost the same price as a meal.”

      Yep, you CLEARLY have no idea what you are talking about again. Ozone machines are a fraction of the cost of the quack water ionizers so many people are trying to push for one. You also overlook that when the so-called “alkaline diet” does not work for a health problem then the cost becomes significantly higher.

      Bean: “Ozone therapy also comes with many hazards and serious side effects which can kill the user.”

      Wow, you found a propaganda article and never bothered to check your facts again. Study conducted in Germany followed nearly 6 million doses of ozone given. There were less that 40 adverse events reported most minor such as irritation at the injection site.

      Look, I can play your same game:

      http://www.ehow.com/about_5542158_alkaline-diet-complications.html

      The fact is that all therapies can pose dangers and possibly cause dearth is USED IMPROPERLY!!!! This does not make the therapies inherently dangerous, just the people who promote crap without understanding what they are promoting such as yourself.

      Bean: “i really dont understand why u deny alkaline diet theory so much”

      Again, it IS NOT a theory, it is a HYPOTHESIS!!! Learn the difference!!!

      Bean: “and u yourself admitted that u cant prove it to be wrong either”

      I have provided plenty of evidence discrediting the so-called alkaline diet. So stop making stuff up in a poor attempt to support your position.

      What I said is that the so-called “alkaline diet” DOES NOT alkalize the blood as has been proven by science, but it does provide health benefits by providing a high level of nutrition.

      • bean says

        fine, ok. it is a hypothesis.

        but i am not going to argue further with u anymore on this topic.

        i urge everyone to search about ozone therapy, particularly the myths part and costs, and scientific reports backing it up if u can find it.

        i am far too lazy to continue with this stubborn person. Be your own judge and i am sure u can find what i said is true.

        he is just like everyone else explaining using his own assumptions, giving out opinions which doesnt have evidence proving it but just that he is much much more stubborn than anyone else.

        • James says

          Bean: “i urge everyone to search about ozone therapy, particularly the myths part and costs, and scientific reports backing it up if u can find it.”

          We have all seen Bean’s lack of research skills when he could not find “anything anywhere in the net” concerning the fact that osteoporosis is a loss of collagen matrix. Yet I found two studies in less than two minutes with hardly any effort. If I tried a little harder I could have found even more since there is more research backing this readily available. It just takes being smarter than a first grader to find the research.

          But to show Bean how easy it is once again, here:

          http://medcapsules.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=354

          This is only some of the research readily available. I have other research that is not on the internet and thus was not listed. Pay attention to that fact Bean. Not all research can be found on the internet. Sometimes you have to resort to other sources such as medical libraries and databases.

          I also recommend that anyone real serious about the research on ozone also get the book The Use of Ozone in Medicine, which was written by doctors for doctors.

  24. bean says

    I know WATER IS NOT FOOD. but u are smart enough to know that i am implementing the concept that both goes in our mouth and absorbed by our body. And if water does changes to our body, why not food ?

    and FYI, i have been trying alkaline water for past few weeks and the effects are amazing. I have chronic acne for past 10 years and i have tried basically everything from antibiotics to laser therapy. The only thing i havent tried is plastic surgery. I myself never trust this alkaline BS but since my family brought one of the water ionizer which produces alkaline water, i have no choice but to drink this water (unless i boil tap water everyday). In just 2-3 weeks, i can see that no more big acne comes out till now. I also frequently get sick from flu and cough but i have been sick free ever since. My little brother has asthma attacks once in a while but he hasnt had any ever since he started drinking this water. I TELL U TO TRY IT BECAUSE U WILL NOT TRUST ME.

    The reason i tell u to try not alkaline water but acidic water is that i know u will just SPOUT ANOTHER THEORY why your body gets healthier and its not because of this alkaline water. If u try to explain why i get lesser acne , flu and cough, and my brother’s asthma, u just justified my reason to let u try the acid water.

    • James says

      Bean: “I know WATER IS NOT FOOD”

      Apparently not.

      Bean: “i am implementing the concept that both goes in our mouth and absorbed by our body. And if water does changes to our body, why not food ?”

      Of course water and food implement changes in the body. There is just no evidence that either alkalize the body as people keep trying to claim.

      Water can react with silica forming orthosilicic acid, which is essential to the body. And water helps to maintain the vascular system. Food can supply energy sources for the body and provides amino acids that help form neurotransmitters and hormones among other functions of food. But again, where is the proof that either alkalize the blood?

      Bean: “and FYI, i have been trying alkaline water for past few weeks and the effects are amazing. I have chronic acne for past 10 years and i have tried basically everything from antibiotics to laser therapy. The only thing i havent tried is plastic surgery. I myself never trust this alkaline BS but since my family brought one of the water ionizer which produces alkaline water, i have no choice but to drink this water (unless i boil tap water everyday). In just 2-3 weeks, i can see that no more big acne comes out till now. I also frequently get sick from flu and cough but i have been sick free ever since. My little brother has asthma attacks once in a while but he hasnt had any ever since he started drinking this water. I TELL U TO TRY IT BECAUSE U WILL NOT TRUST ME.”

      I have tried it and I did not like it. I also know a lot of other people who tried it and reported becoming ill from drinking the water, which makes a lot of sense if you understand the chemistry.

      If the water really helped your acne or your brother’s asthma as you claimed then there must be a scientific rationale for these effects. So exactly how did the water affect the androgen hormone levels that lead to acne formation or the adrenal dysfunction that leads to asthma. Please be specific in your explanations.

      I see people trying to make a case for the quack ionized alkaline water all the time giving credit to the water when they did other things that are what really helped. For example, a woman on another site tried to claim the ionized alkaline water got her off her thyroid medication although there is nothing in the water that supports thyroid function. She totally ignored the fact that her doctor claimed she was magnesium deficient and therefore was given magnesium shots and started on a magnesium citrate supplement. Guess what REAL science has proven to support thyroid function? That’s right, MAGNESIUM!!! So it was the magnesium shots and supplements that likely helped her get off her thyroid medication since the water has nothing in it to significantly help.

      Again, people do this all the time. They want so hard to believe in a product that they throw common sense out the window and give credit to a product that has nothing to do with it while ignoring the other changes that were really helping.

      Another good example of this is cesium chloride often touted as a cancer cure. This despite the fact that cesium chloride has been shown to induce cancer and promote the growth of already existing cancers. Yet the believers love to quote one study that showed a small number of remissions among test subjects given cesium chloride. Sounds promising until you read the rest of the study they ignored where the people were given various other things in conjunction including things known to boost immunity and fight cancer. So there is no proof that cesium chloride cured any cases of cancer. Although various other studies do show that it causes and promotes cancer.

      As another example, another quack cancer and AIDS “cure” is “oleander soup”. Every humans study on oleander has found it to ineffective for cancer and according to the latest research appears to shorten the lives of cancer patients. But the promoters of oleander ignore this fact and also twist the findings to make it sound effective when it is not. And as usual they cite one source that makes it sound effective. This is not even a study, but rather someone’s thesis. What the promoters of quack oleander ignore is that in these thesis the person is also discussing the use of Sutherlandia, which unlike oleander has been proven to cure cancer. Yet they ignore this fact and give credit to the oleander, which has been proven to be ineffective while ignoring the Sutherlandia given to the same patients despite its being proven to be effective. Same with the AIDS patients who were given antiviral and immune stimulating foods and supplements. So it is common for people to ignore common sense and real research to focus on what they desire to believe even when no scientific reasoning exists.

      Bean: “The reason i tell u to try not alkaline water but acidic water is that i know u will just SPOUT ANOTHER THEORY why your body gets healthier and its not because of this alkaline water. If u try to explain why i get lesser acne , flu and cough, and my brother’s asthma, u just justified my reason to let u try the acid water.”

      Did you know that the acidic water is actually antioxidant? As where the alkaline water contains caustic mineral (metal) hydroxides that chemically burn tissues and dangerously neutralize stomach acid. As these caustic mineral (metal) hydroxides disassociate they form the very dangerous hydroxyl radical. Again, basic science. Unfortunately people are often too laze to do real research. So they just read some bogus propaganda sales site and accept whatever they claim as the gospel. Kangen is no exception. See:

      http://medreview.wordpress.com/2013/03/07/top-5-worst-internet-health-information-sites-curezone-org-part-3-alkalineacid-support-forum-part-1/

      • bean says

        To james,

        thats exactly the reason why i tell u to drink the water. because u said theres no proof to water alkalizes the blood. If i drink it and show it to u, u wont believe it and just come out with another 100+ reasons why it happen and not because of the water.

        i can try to research why it helped me, but u will just again come up with countless reasons again. Its futile and i dont want to waste my time anymore with such a stubborn person.

        all the more reason i tell u to try acidic water instead of alkaline. because if alkaline water does help u, u will just spout another reason unrelated to water which make the change in your body

        if u think this acidic water is anti-oxidants, wow, its really good. it can clear up free radicals for u. u should really try it.

        as for how the machine creates alkaline water is not by adding those metals. its mainly by electrolysis of water to make the water separates into H+ and OH- and by manipulating the concentration of H+ and OH-, walahhhh, u got your alkaline water or acidic water.

        FYI, enagic’s kangen water machine has operate in japan for past 40 years and the only known problem found is that its contraindicated in people who cant produce enough stomach acids. and yes, it has obtained much more quality and safety recognition all around the world than some of the methods u recommended to other people. If u think that the water is dangerous, go ahead and sue them, stop spreading rumors and unproven stuffs on the net like so many other people.

        as for how u said it dangerously neutralize stomach acids, it just shows that u are the 1 that did not do any research. Although stomach acids exists at normal time, it is mainly produced when there is food intake. That is why people who dont eat at the same time everyday more prone to gastric. This is proven real science.

        • James says

          Bean: “thats exactly the reason why i tell u to drink the water. because u said theres no proof to water alkalizes the blood. ”

          EXACTLY, NO proof just as I have been saying all along. So stop trying to promote this myth as fact.

          Bean: “i can try to research why it helped me, but u will just again come up with countless reasons again.”

          Again, REAL facts cannot be disputed. Therefore, all you have to do is to provide some REAL research backing your claim. Even a scientific explanation of exactly how the water is working for these different conditions. All I keep hearing from you is excuses as to why you can’t provide the evidence. Come on Bean be honest and just admit the reason is that there is no real reason the water can help other than maybe placebo effect.

          Bean: “if u think this acidic water is anti-oxidants”

          Yes, this is BASIC science. You should try using some basic science for once. You will be surprised at what facts you may actually learn. Just like how basic science has proven how ionized alkaline water disassociates forming the powerful and dangerous hydroxyl radical.

          Bean: “as for how the machine creates alkaline water is not by adding those metals. ”

          Never said it did. I have made it CLEAR that they start with mineralized water. The minerals in the water allow for the formation of caustic mineral (metal) hydroxides, which when dissociate form the dangerous hydroxyl radical. Look it up. Ah, that’s right, I forgot you don’t know how to do even basic research. Just like how you could find nothing anywhere on the internet discussing the fact that osteoporosis is the result of collagen, not mineral loss. Yet I found two studies in less than two minutes. And there is still more I could have found if I spent a little more time. All you have to do is to know how to research to find the facts.

          Bean: “its mainly by electrolysis of water to make the water separates into H+ and OH- and by manipulating the concentration of H+ and OH-, walahhhh, u got your alkaline water or acidic water”.

          Very good, all stuff I have explained to people in the past. What you left out are the facts that the negatively charged OH binds with the positively charged metals in the minerals forming the caustic mineral (metal) hydroxides known for neutralizing stomach acid and chemically burning tissues. As these disassociate they form the dangerous hydroxyl radical.

          Bean: “FYI, enagic’s kangen water machine has operate in japan for past 40 years”

          So what? Chemotherapy has been around longer than that. This does not mean it is safe or effective!!!

          Bean: “and the only known problem found is that its contraindicated in people who cant produce enough stomach acids”

          There are a lot more dangers than that. But again, you have to understand basic chemistry and how the body really works to understand why it also increases the risk of cancer, heart disease, allergies, immune suppression, hormone imbalances, neurotransmitter imbalances, decreased collagen synthesis, nutritional deficiencies, etc. Obviously you don’t understand basic chemistry and how the body really works. This is why you keep getting your health information from propaganda filled sales sites.

          Bean: “If u think that the water is dangerous, go ahead and sue them, stop spreading rumors and unproven stuffs on the net like so many other people.”

          You obviously know as little about law as you do health. In order to sue you have to show cause as in proof of your own injury. Since I have never tried the water long term to cause these problems I don’t have cause. Again, you should learn something about what you are posting about before posting such foolish assumptions

          By the same token, if you had even the slightest clue of what you were talking about then you would know that these are not unproven statements but rather well known science and human physiology.

          Bean: “as for how u said it dangerously neutralize stomach acids, it just shows that u are the 1 that did not do any research. Although stomach acids exists at normal time, it is mainly produced when there is food intake.”

          Note your own wording of “mainly”. Thus you are apparently also aware that stomach acid can also be produced even when food is not present. Even drinking water produces stomach acid. And basic proven real science has proven that the stomach acid will neutralize the alkaline water making it no longer alkaline unless the alkaline water dangerously overwhelms the stomach’s acidity.

          • Elizabeth says

            I found reading this interesting until it got to be a full out spat and it was about only refuting another’s claim rather than informing the general public and that person. I don’t credit or discredit the alkaline water community. Honestly I have met many who swear by their water machines and they are radiantly healthy individuals. But it might just be put down to the fact that they are doing themselves the gigantic favor of drinking more water which we should all do. I was looking for information and in the end had to settle for an argument. Will have to go elsewhere to understand the validity of alkaline vs acid.

            • James says

              Hi Elizabeth,

              Addressing your comment about some people using these machines and looking radiantly healthy this does not mean anything. First of all we have to keep in mind that many people who are severely ill can still look radiantly healthy. This is why so many people do not realize they are sick with cancer or other diseases until they go in for routine tests or some trauma or health issue pops up and they end up in the hospital where tests are run.

              In addition people who invest in to these machines thinking they are doing something healthy are likely doing other things for their health such as a better diet, herbs, supplements, exercise, etc. To give credit to a caustic water without any evidence to back this is ridiculous, but people do it all the time Just like the lady who swore up and down that the ionized alkaline water cured her hypothyroidism. Of course the water will not do squat for hypothyroidism. With further questioning low and behold the truth came out. She said she had started feeling better after receiving magnesium injections from her chiropractor. So she continued to supplement with magnesium citrate. Guess what helps support thyroid function? Magnesium!!!

              This is why real scientific evidence is needed instead of assumptions that something is working just because people want to believe that after they plunked down $5,000 on one of these quack devices that it had better do something for their money’s worth! So most people are not going to believe that a $12 bottle of magnesium cured them when they were conned in buying a $5,000 machine to correct what people claim will cure the same health issues.

              On the seller’s side they need to justify their expensive machines. So they use whatever twisted scientific facts or outright bogus science claims counting on people not researching the claims.

              For example, they claim the alkaline water is antioxidant. Have they ever explained this claim scientifically? I have never seen a real explanation. But we know in chemistry that antioxidant means “anti-oxygen”. So an antioxidant would have to neutralize oxygen radicals such as singlet oxygen. But the hydroxyl radicals formed by the disassociation of the mineral (metal) hydroxides in the ionized alkaline water DOES NOT neutralize singlet oxygen. On the other hand the hydrogen ions in the acid water does as pointed out in my earlier post. If the alkaline water peddlers had any proof whatsoever to the contrary then they would have posted the proof. Instead they simply come back with unsupported claims and misinterpretations of the studies they tout.

              This is why I always tell people RESEARCH the claims they read on the internet from credible sources. I even tell people to research my claims because I have already researched the facts from credible medical sources and am confident in my statements. And unlike so many of the people who tend to post on medical topics on blogs and videos I have a very long medical background and do know how to read and understand medical studies.

              Anyway, good luck with your health research.

              James

  25. bean says

    Bean: “It dont have to be severe for our body to start looking for other sources of alkali forming substances, because our body already dont have the means to keep the pH in normal range.”

    James: “Again, the body DOES NOT have to seek out alkali forming substances since virtually all pH regulation is through respiration followed by ion secretion or retention by the kidneys. NO alkaline reserves required and no having to seek out alkaline forming substances in these methods that account for virtually all pH regulation in the body.”

    Bean: ” It might just be normal for a while while our body compensates it and it slowly decreases till below pH 7.35 which doctors may finally start to diagnose it as metabolic acidosis. the reason why people is saying only under EXTREME conditions, that minerals are pulled out is that people can noticed it much easier under such conditions. It doesnt prove that under normal conditions it doesnt happen.”

    James: “Proof goers both ways. There is no proof that this does happen either.”

    while i have no proof of these happening in our body aside from countless pages on internet claimed it to be, but its more logical that it does happen if u look at how a chemical reaction happen, particularly the brownian motion part where the substrates meet.

    our body doesnt have an on-off switch. Its all regulatory mechanisms, which in this case is the buffer systems. The molecules of the buffer systems are free moving in the blood. That means that as long as these molecules of, doesnt matter bicarbonate buffer regulated through resp. and kidneys or the protein buffer systems or any other buffer system meet with acids, IT WILL INTERACT WITH IT. There is no switch to stop the phosphate buffer from interacting with acids, theres no stopping when the molecules of protein buffer meets the acids, IT WILL INTERACT WITH IT. The reason bicarbonate is the main buffer because it existed in a much bigger concentration. IT DOESNT MEANT OTHER BUFFERS ARE NOT WORKING AT THE SAME TIME. And the molecules to create these buffers are replenished at the same time.

    Think logically, when molecules to create these are used more than it is replenished, what will happen ? In my opinion it is happening but only that people are not noticing it until it became EXTREME

    • James says

      Bean: “James: “Proof goers both ways. There is no proof that this does happen either.”

      while i have no proof of these happening in our body aside from countless pages on internet claimed it to be, but its more logical that it does happen if u look at how a chemical reaction happen, particularly the brownian motion part where the substrates meet.”

      Just because some propaganda site on the internet makes a claim this DOES NOT make it true.

      And if you understood even basic chemistry then you would know why your claims have been wrong.

      Bean: “our body doesnt have an on-off switch. Its all regulatory mechanisms”

      Which do have on an of “switches”. These are known as receptors.

      Bean: “which in this case is the buffer systems. The molecules of the buffer systems are free moving in the blood. That means that as long as these molecules of, doesnt matter bicarbonate buffer regulated through resp. and kidneys or the protein buffer systems or any other buffer system meet with acids, IT WILL INTERACT WITH IT. ”

      So what? Part of the reactions of acids in the body with other things is to produce other substances essential to the body and to protect the body from highly alkaline ammonia. These are essential things, not bad things. And again it does not use of alkaline reserves as has been claimed.

      Bean: “There is no switch to stop the phosphate buffer from interacting with acids, theres no stopping when the molecules of protein buffer meets the acids, IT WILL INTERACT WITH IT. The reason bicarbonate is the main buffer because it existed in a much bigger concentration. IT DOESNT MEANT OTHER BUFFERS ARE NOT WORKING AT THE SAME TIME. And the molecules to create these buffers are replenished at the same time. ”

      And again your point? As pointed out respiration and kidney function account for nearly all the pH buffering in the body. Yes, there are other extremely minor pH buffers also at work, which has been explained previously. But again, they are minor buffering systems.

      I did notice you contradicted yourself in the last part of your statement. Previously you claimed the alkaline reserves get used up. But now you state “the molecules to create these buffers are replenished at the same time”. If they are being replenished then how are they being depleted? That is an extremely clear contradiction.

      Bean: “Think logically, when molecules to create these are used more than it is replenished, what will happen ? In my opinion it is happening but only that people are not noticing it until it became EXTREME”

      Yes, think logically for once Bean. Again the primary means of pH regulation that account for virtually all of the body’s pH regulation are respiration and kidney function. NEITHER of these need or have “alkaline reserves”. So where is the proof that any alkaline reserves are being taxed in the body in the majority of individuals? In order to prove that it is happening in the first place you need to provide the evidence, which you have not done. You only keep providing your assumptions.

      • bean says

        To james,

        when u separates my sentences and look at it individually, u managed to implement a new meaning in my sentences. well done james. well done indeed.

        what i meant is that the processes wont stop immediately, completely. and u do understand how receptors work. Through feedback mechanisms. When it is a lot, -ve feedback mechs will signal our body for a reaction in the opposite direction and when its too few, the receptor picks up the signal and causes the other reaction. It is always regulated. Not completely stopped !!!

        i will try to explain it in a simpler way. My bad that u cant understand what i am trying to tell. i thought u are smarter than that.

        since u keep on saying bicarbonate buffer is the main buffer and so on and so on, i will try to use this as an eg.
        lets give a hypothetical value to this buffer, say 70 molecules. If the acids in our body is more than 70 ? say 100, where do other 30 will go ? and keep in mind that acids doesnt choose which buffer system to neutralize them.

        this is the part i need to stress again and again and again. If your body uses more of the alkalies than it is replenished through diet everyday, there will be a day when these run out. and even before it run out, it would have already caused some damages.

        If u still didnt see the big picture, i give another eg. for u.
        Lets say u kept 100grand in a bank. each day u withdraw 10g and only put back in 9g. Do you think your money can last forever ?

        The sentences below are discussing about the same thing. and u manage to separate them and said i contradicted myself. ANOTHER JOB WELL DONE by james
        Bean: “There is no switch to stop the phosphate buffer from interacting with acids, theres no stopping when the molecules of protein buffer meets the acids, IT WILL INTERACT WITH IT. The reason bicarbonate is the main buffer because it existed in a much bigger concentration. IT DOESNT MEANT OTHER BUFFERS ARE NOT WORKING AT THE SAME TIME. And the molecules to create these buffers are replenished at the same time. ”
        Bean: “Think logically, when molecules to create these are used more than it is replenished, what will happen ? In my opinion it is happening but only that people are not noticing it until it became EXTREME”

        my bad if u really cant understand, next time i will make sure i write it more clearly JUST FOR U, james.

        while resp. and kidney are the two main organs for bicarbonate buffer system, overwork of any organ in our body always leads to fatigue and eventually failure of the organ itself. in my opinion, this only further justify the need to reduce acid intake. i have no proof that alkaline reserve are being taxed, but its same as u have no proof that it isnt. Thats why i try to explain it to you over and over again. My way of explaining is much more logical than yours. Can u prove to me that if an acid meets a base, a reaction wont take place ? So logically speaking, if there is too much acids, the chances of these reactions will happen will increase accordingly too. And thus, the birth of the “HYPOTHESIS” to reduce acids for a healthier life.

        while i am providing assumptions, so does u. U assume that the bicarbonates regulated by resp. and kidneys are infinite and no matter how much acids u take in, they will be the ones that completely neutralizes it all.

        • James says

          Bean: “when u separates my sentences and look at it individually, u managed to implement a new meaning in my sentences.”

          Not doing that at all. I am reading them exactly as they are written. You just keep twisting things to make it sound like you said something else when you get making stuff up. Just like you kept claiming the studies I presented on collagen loss and osteoporosis said things that are not found ANYWHERE in the studies. Lying like that does not support your position, it just proves how unethical you really are.

          Bean: “Through feedback mechanisms. When it is a lot, -ve feedback mechs will signal our body for a reaction in the opposite direction and when its too few, the receptor picks up the signal and causes the other reaction. It is always regulated. Not completely stopped !!!”

          Thanks for contradicting yourself again. Before you claimed that the body can use up its alkaline reserves, which would stop the process if the claim were true to begin with. Now you are claiming processes are never completely stop. So again, you change your wording to fit your needs. Typical of people who don’t have a clue of what they are talking about.

          Bean: “i will try to explain it in a simpler way. My bad that u cant understand what i am trying to tell. i thought u are smarter than that.

          since u keep on saying bicarbonate buffer is the main buffer and so on and so on, i will try to use this as an eg.
          lets give a hypothetical value to this buffer, say 70 molecules. If the acids in our body is more than 70 ? say 100, where do other 30 will go ? and keep in mind that acids doesnt choose which buffer system to neutralize them.”

          Are you seriously that dumb?!! You keep referring to the bicarbonate system, which tells me that you at least know this is tied to respiration. But the body has several bicarbonate systems, which is why I refer specifically to respiration as being the main means of pH regulation

          I already know you will not listen to me so I found a detailed explanation for you about how respiration works. And since I already know you have a reading comprehension problem I found you a video instead with pictures.:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHWXbqRz5y4

          As we can see carbonic acid and bicarbonate go back and forth and no alkaline reserves are used up as you falsely claim in the process. The kidneys take up much of the remaining task of pH regulation. And again, no reserves are used up as you again falsely claim.

          Bean: “The reason bicarbonate is the main buffer because it existed in a much bigger concentration.”

          Maybe it is bigger because it is so important as a pH regulator being that this is the main means of pH regulation.

          Bean: “IT DOESNT MEANT OTHER BUFFERS ARE NOT WORKING AT THE SAME TIME.”

          ROTFLMAO!!! I never claimed they were not. In fact, I have made it EXTREMELY clear that the body has multiple pH regulators. So once again Bean is caught red handed twisting what was really said to fit his needs instead of being honest about what was really said.

          Just because it is pointed out numerous times the body’s primary means of pH regulation are respiration and kidney retention or elimination of hydrogen ions, this does not mean they are the only active buffers. NOBODY ever claimed this as Bean is trying to falsely imply. But the other buffering systems are minor systems, not primary. So why does Bean keep trying to twist what was really said rather than just being honest?

          Bean: “And the molecules to create these buffers are replenished at the same time.”

          And again, so there is no depletion of buffers as Bean earlier claimed in a contradictory statement.

          Bean: “while resp. and kidney are the two main organs for bicarbonate buffer system, overwork of any organ in our body always leads to fatigue and eventually failure of the organ itself.”

          Which MAY be true if they were actually being overworked. But you still have to prove that acidosis is as common as you imply, which you have not and cannot do!

          Bean: “i have no proof that alkaline reserve are being taxed”

          Exactly, but you keep making this sound like a fact with your assumptions.

          Bean: “but its same as u have no proof that it isnt”

          Actually, since respiration and kidney ion retention or elimination account for nearly all the pH regulation in the body and neither have so-called “alkaline reserves”. So that is pretty strong evidence against your assumption.

          Bean: “My way of explaining is much more logical than yours.”

          Assumptions presented as “evidence” is hardly logical. More like completely ridiculous.

          Bean: “Can u prove to me that if an acid meets a base, a reaction wont take place ? ”

          Science has already proven that a reaction does take place between an alkaline substance and an acid substance. I even gave you multiple examples of this including how ionized alkaline water neutralizes stomach acid. Why are you pretending to be such an idiot? Or are you even pretending?

          Bean: “So logically speaking, if there is too much acids, the chances of these reactions will happen will increase accordingly too. And thus, the birth of the “HYPOTHESIS” to reduce acids for a healthier life.”

          You still have to prove the acidosis you keep claiming in the first place, which you have NEVER done, nor can you do since the acidic food causing acidosis claims are myths.

          Bean: “while i am providing assumptions, so does u. U assume that the bicarbonates regulated by resp. and kidneys are infinite and no matter how much acids u take in, they will be the ones that completely neutralizes it all.”

          See my last statement again. You are basing your assumptions on a myth.

  26. bean says

    To james,

    Quoted from james
    “And then look at amino acids, which are actually broken down in to highly alkaline and highly toxic ammonia. ”

    this is a process called deamination. It happens when there is an excess of proteins. Again it supports the alkaline diet theory where too much acids is not good for our body.

    • James says

      Bean: “Quoted from james
      “And then look at amino acids, which are actually broken down in to highly alkaline and highly toxic ammonia. ”

      this is a process called deamination. It happens when there is an excess of proteins. Again it supports the alkaline diet theory where too much acids is not good for our body.”

      ROTFLMAO!!!!! You are wrong on several points Bean.

      First, this is not just from an excess of protein. The body is always breaking down old cells to replace with new ones. This also provides a source of ammonia.

      Secondly, ammonia IS NOT an acid. So how does this in YOUR own words “supports the alkaline diet theory where too much acids is not good for our body”? Do you realize how toxic ammonia is to the body?

      • bean says

        To james,

        DUDEEEEEEEEE,
        I am refering to AMINO ACIDS, not ammonia. Do u think i am so blind that i cant see u wrote “highly alkaline”

        so our body already produces HIGHLY TOXIC ammonia, and u think its not a good approach to reduce excess amino acids which can further increase these highly toxic ammonia ?

        OMGGGGG
        PLease stop these futile attempts at trying to win at every argument.

        BTW, “Deamination is the process by which amino acids are broken down if there is an excess of protein intake.” from wikipedia. Thats all i wanted to say, i never asked what are other sources of ammonia.

        while u said i lie, manipulate, bla bla bla…
        and in this case, u said i am wrong on several points, which i just proved to u that i am not,
        u, on the other hand just showed another classic eg. of how u direct the discussion to other stuffs as what u have been doing ever since the start, and i have been pointing it out to you.

        • James says

          Bean: “I am refering to AMINO ACIDS, not ammonia. Do u think i am so blind that i cant see u wrote “highly alkaline””

          Well, you do clearly have a comprehension problem.

          To start with the toxicity IS NOT from the amino acids but the highly alkaline and highly toxic ammonia produced from their breakdown. This is why the toxic ammonia is converted in to beneficial uric acid, which among other things is one of the body’s primary antioxidants. In the process one acid is traded to form another while eliminating the toxic alkaline ammonia in the process.

          Bean: “and u think its not a good approach to reduce excess amino acids which can further increase these highly toxic ammonia ?”

          Again a comprehension problem. To start with even if you cut out protein intake the body is still going to produce ammonia. But the body has a means to deal with the toxic ammonia and create a beneficial compound in the process. If you knew anything about how the body really works then you would have known all this.

          Bean: “OMGGGGG
          PLease stop these futile attempts at trying to win at every argument.”

          I am not trying, I am. You have been proven wrong so many times already yet you keep up with YOUR futile attempts to win every argument. The reason your attempts are so futile is that you keep relying on assumptions as evidence while I keep relying on scientific evidence. Scientific evidence always trumps assumptions.

          The rest of your post is not worth responding to. It is just more rhetoric trying to go off topic and make things personal since you cannot argue the actual topic due to lack of any evidence to back your assumptions.

  27. bean says

    To james,

    As i said again… the way they measure (by food ash) whether the food is more acidic or alkaline may be wrong, but that doesnt prove that food can be net forming acids or bases.

    alkaline diet MAIN point is that food that net forming bases will be better for health.

    and yes, the alkaline food will be metabolized to be acids and be used by our body, but it is much much much muchhhhh lesser than those net acid forming food. remember the word net forming ?

    To answer your question on the milk calcium thing, while searching for how protein interferes with calcium absorption, almost every page on google gave the following explanation :

    high amounts of animal protein depletes calcium from the body into the kidneys leaving calcium deficient bones and increased kidney stones. The high acid in protein foods withdraws calcium from bones to balance the pH in the blood. Acid forming foods also creates excess uric acid, which builds up in muscles and organs causing pain and congestion

    while i know this doesnt answer your question, i just want to show u that a lot of studies have been made on how different food can cause different diseases for a very very long time. It just that until recently people find the common thing in these food is that it is net acid forming.

    ps: lots of stuffs u explained cant be found in the internet. i am sorry i am just not as educated as u. God knows where your knowledge of them came from.

    and u dont have to add a comment to every sentence i made. some comments u made just further explains my statements and it made the comments really really long and difficult for for other readers.

    if u want to see eg. :

    me-
    “what i was trying to meant is that stomach acids provides an acidic environment and the food are stilled absorbed as its simplest form. ”

    you-
    “Yes, but as I said the acidity serves multiple purposes. As far as digestion and absorption its role is in the breakdown of proteins and acidification of minerals to make them more absorbable and to enhance absorption of some vitamins.

    As for the absorption of other things, yes they are absorbed in their broken down forms. Not all of these require stomach acid though.”

    my main point is that “it is absorbed in its simplest form”, but u went and explain so many other stuffs just to agree with me in the end. U dont have to do that.

    me-
    “As far as i know minerals are absorbed in the ionized form. (eg. ca2+, mg2+) it will form salts but when it passes through membranes, it will dissociates and still transported as ions. ”

    You-
    “Yes, but some salts are easier to disassociate, which again is why the reaction of minerals with stomach acid enhance their absorption.”

    These are just a few of the eg., i am sure u dont need me to copy paste everything here right ?
    u add a comment to almost every sentence i made. please stop it if your answer is not going to contradict my answer. Try to keep it to the main point of the arguement

    • James says

      Bean: “As i said again… the way they measure (by food ash) whether the food is more acidic or alkaline may be wrong, but that doesnt prove that food can be net forming acids or bases. ”

      And it does not prove they do either. What we do know though is that if you sit down and eat a cheeseburger or spinach these WILL NOT alter your blood pH because again the body maintains its pH balance regardless of what you eat.

      And since you admit you cannot prove your assumptions stop trying to pass them off as facts!!!

      Bean: “alkaline diet MAIN point is that food that net forming bases will be better for health.”

      Again, in order to prove this ASSUMPTION you still have to prove that there is a higher “net forming base”, which you have NO evidence for. Then you would have to still prove that this is leading to health benefits. Alkaline does not necessarily mean healthy. In fact, most of the most toxic compounds found in plants are alkaline alkaloids. If you feel your claims are true then lets see some REAL scientific evidence rather than worthless assumptions!!!

      Bean: “and yes, the alkaline food will be metabolized to be acids and be used by our body, but it is much much much muchhhhh lesser than those net acid forming food. remember the word net forming ?”

      Once again, is this assumption or something backed with REAL scientific evidence?

      For example, you keep claiming that “acid forming” foods lead to bone loss. Yet you keep ignoring my question as to how athletes maintain such a high bone density despite the assumed “acidic diet”. So again, what is your explanation?

      Bean: “To answer your question on the milk calcium thing, while searching for how protein interferes with calcium absorption, almost every page on google gave the following explanation :

      high amounts of animal protein depletes calcium from the body into the kidneys leaving calcium deficient bones and increased kidney stones. The high acid in protein foods withdraws calcium from bones to balance the pH in the blood. Acid forming foods also creates excess uric acid, which builds up in muscles and organs causing pain and congestion”

      ROTFLMAO!!!! You are reading propaganda sites again. That is not even close to being true!!! Look up the REAL science. The real answer has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with blood pH!!!

      Bean: “while i know this doesnt answer your question, i just want to show u that a lot of studies have been made on how different food can cause different diseases for a very very long time.”

      You clearly were not reading actual, real scientific studies since the information was completely bogus. REAL science can explain the real reason though. You just need to do some research from some credible sites instead of propaganda sites.

      Bean: “It just that until recently people find the common thing in these food is that it is net acid forming.”

      You mean they are guessing this since there is no REAL scientific evidence backing these assumptions.

      Bean: “ps: lots of stuffs u explained cant be found in the internet. i am sorry i am just not as educated as u. God knows where your knowledge of them came from.”

      Not everything on the internet is correct. There is a lot of health fraud. For example, the whole acid-alkaline diet myth. Or the bogus claims that acidity causes cancer or osteoporosis. Etc. This is also why you have so many “health” sites making contradictory claims from other “health” sites. There is a whole lot of guessing going on and virtually no fact checking by people.

      As for where my knowledge came from it is from being in medicine for nearly 34 years and spending a hell of a lot of time doing research from actual medical studies instead of propaganda and sales sites.

  28. says

    Dear Mr. Bean,

    I believe what you claimed as a contradiction what James or other James said and what he stated from his comment does not necessarily conflict in my opinion. Since everyone wants to carpet bomb him, let me be the one to be on his side for once at least.

    As I understand it, he says it may affect but this effect takes a very long time and in extreme situations may be observed. So in generalizations we do not speak of exceptions, do we?Simple is that.

    He can correct me as he wants.
    Regards, Korkut

    • bean says

      dear korkut,

      what he says about the effects will take a long time and under extreme conditions is about metabolic acidosis which leads to osteoporosis not about food will affect pH. He never once admitted that food does affects pH but once in a while accidentally contradicts himself in his arguement.

      • says

        Dear Bean and James,

        I love to follow you guys both and I am not taking sides. Just keep going.

        In the meantime, I believe anything and everything can be depleted in human body by cuisine and food selection or by other environmental effects.
        James would remember, B12 is critical for nerve protection and it is widely medicated for diabetes type II. Similarly, insulin is produced from cromium and lack of mineral cromium intake will wear the body in the long run for such patients. So shall we deduce lack of some alkali might just lead to acidosis in the long run? At least on a probability thought level?

        Last for your acne, you can try Ag+ as well. It is a bacteria killer in its best form. Dont use tap water but distilled water and good quality silver. Easy to form by 32 V DV voltage in pure water preferably pre-microwaved but away from UV. Good for hard to reach locations of the body by antibiotics such as throat, inner ear, face, etc. Brown and blue glass it should be kept in.

        I am not necessarily a “homeosympathetic” for the record.

        Regards,
        Korkut

        • bean says

          dear korkut

          thx for the info. i will try it out. My acne has almost cleared out. It only comes back when i had lots of beer or eat junk food

          something about you can help make peace in dire situations. i admire that.

      • James says

        Bean: “what he says about the effects will take a long time and under extreme conditions is about metabolic acidosis which leads to osteoporosis not about food will affect pH. He never once admitted that food does affects pH but once in a while accidentally contradicts himself in his arguement.”

        Bean, As explained to you already osteoporosis IS NOT the result of acidosis. In fact, a lack of ascorbic acid and/or orthosilicic acid are the primary causes of osteoporosis. Again, learn how the body really works instead of guessing.

        In fact, acidosis does not cause any significant bone loss. It takes extreme acidosis to cause any bone loss since bone is the last resort for pH buffering. And if the person’s acidosis is that bad then they have more important things to worry about. Especially considering how little bone loss will occur from the extreme acidosis.

        I have not contradicted myself either. You just keep twisting things to try and make a point since you cannot rely on real evidence to back your claims.

        • bean says

          To james,

          to clarify to you, you yourself said that acids might only start to leech minerals from bones under EXTREME conditions. does this RING A BELL to u ?

          i can find and copy paste for u exactly the comment which u said it but i am lazy. But i will do it for u if u want.

          oh wait, u just said it again right below on the 3rd paragraph that extreme acidosis causes osteoporosis. Normally, i would like to delete all the words above but since i have already spend energy on it, i decided to not delete the sentences above and just leave it for displaying purposes.

          i didnt twist anything. well, maybe i might have twisted a little here and there, i am not sure. Show me where i twisted your statements and i will apologize to u.

          again, please please refrain the word “real science”, acids does have effect on the bones, only that it is more prominent when it is severe. and u CANT prove that osteoporosis may be the effect of acids leeching minerals over the years is wrong.

          PS: the comment above was made because korkut thinks that u said food will affect pH if its very long and under extreme conditions, so i reply saying that what u meant by the very long and under extreme conditions is about metabolic acidosis. I am not trying to bombard u or anything in that comment. I was solely trying to explain to korkut what u meant by the very long and under extreme conditions thing.

          • James says

            Bean: “to clarify to you, you yourself said that acids might only start to leech minerals from bones under EXTREME conditions. does this RING A BELL to u ?”

            Yes, I have always stated that bone buffering is a LAST RESORT method of buffering. Therefore, it requires very extreme acidosis and is more rare than the already EXTREMELY rare acidosis.

            Bean: “i can find and copy paste for u exactly the comment which u said it but i am lazy. But i will do it for u if u want.”

            Nah, that is alright. I would hate to see you strain that last active brain cell.

            Bean: “oh wait, u just said it again right below on the 3rd paragraph that extreme acidosis causes osteoporosis.”

            Where? In the paragraph above your post here is my quote about osteoporosis:

            “Bean, As explained to you already osteoporosis IS NOT the result of acidosis. In fact, a lack of ascorbic acid and/or orthosilicic acid are the primary causes of osteoporosis. Again, learn how the body really works instead of guessing.

            In fact, acidosis does not cause any significant bone loss. It takes extreme acidosis to cause any bone loss since bone is the last resort for pH buffering. And if the person’s acidosis is that bad then they have more important things to worry about. Especially considering how little bone loss will occur from the extreme acidosis.”

            Wow, NOWHERE in my statement do I claim acidosis is the cause of osteoporosis as you falsely claim. I do state that a lack of one or two ACIDS can lead to osteoporosis.

            And I also CLEARLY state that “little bone loss will occur from the extreme acidosis.”

            And on March 18th I also CLEARLY state: “In addition, osteoporosis IS NOT a loss of bone minerals and so has NOTHING to do with acidosis.”

            What part of “NOTHING to do with acidosis” did you not understand?

            On July 27th I state: “Evidence? A lack of ascorbic acid, amino acids, and especially orthosilicic acid will lead to osteoporosis, but that is as close to having to do with pH as it gets.”

            Again NOTHING stating acidosis causing osteoporosis.

            In fact I ran a search for the word ‘osteoporosis” and looked at all the posts where that word was. NOT even a single post from myself states anywhere “extreme acidosis causes osteoporosis” as you claim. So why are you lying about what was really said yet again? Are you really so desperate to win an argument that you would go to these lengths? Have you ever thought about maybe trying to back up your claims with real scientific evidence instead of just making up lies about what was really said?

            Bean: “Show me where i twisted your statements and i will apologize to u”

            I just gave you a great example. But I am not going to go back and look up all the past examples again since I already addressed them before and frankly it is not worth wasting more of my time over. As people read through the posts they will see for themselves.

            Bean: “again, please please refrain the word “real science”, acids does have effect on the bones, only that it is more prominent when it is severe. ”

            What is ironic here is that REAL science has proven that acids have an effect on bone. Problem is that it is not acids in the blood. Bone cells secrete acid to break down old bone to be replaced with new healthy bone. A process known as remodeling. Again, this has NOTHING to do with acidosis, which is EXTREMELY rare. The excessive acidosis required to have any effect on bone is even more rare. So you have a better chance of winning the lottery than you do ever meeting anyone who has had severe enough acidosis to cause buffering from bones. Again, do some real research and stop relying on propaganda sites for your health assumptions.

            Bean: “and u CANT prove that osteoporosis may be the effect of acids leeching minerals over the years is wrong.”

            Actually it is not only easy to disprove your assumption, it has already been done. As has been proven osteoporosis is a loss of collagen matrix leading to decreased bone mineralization. It is not a loss of minerals from bone, which are osteopenia and osteomalacia. And the primary causes of collagen loss are a lack f ascorbic ACID and/or orthosilicic ACID!!! Even severe acidosis DOES NOT cause collagen loss. Should not be that hard for a person to comprehend.

        • bean says

          since u said u never contraindicated yourself, i went and find these out for u.

          James : “Yes and no. The main effect ALL foods provide as far as pH goes is the fact that all foods are metabolized in to acids in the long run, many of which are essential to our health, energy production and existence.”

          Bean: “quoted from your statement,
          “The main effect ALL foods provide as far as pH goes is the fact that all foods are metabolized in to acids in the long run, many of which are essential to our health, energy production and existence.”
          Bean: “doesnt this meant that certain food will increase acids in the body ? ”

          James : “Yes, acids we can exist or function without. And yes, there is such a thing as too much of a good thing. But this is why the body has so many redundant systems to maintain its required acidity level.”

          Both statement given by you meant food will turn into acids which justifies food does affect pH

          • bean says

            this is another eg.

            james: “One form that is very poorly absorbed (the alkaline form) and one that is highly absorbed (the acidic form). This higher levels of the acidic form will reach the blood and thus more of the excess gets excreted when the body cannot utilize it”

            this is on a topic about calcium retention and incidentally showed that food affects blood pH, this is the reply by james

            • James says

              Bean: ”

              this is another eg.

              james: “One form that is very poorly absorbed (the alkaline form) and one that is highly absorbed (the acidic form). This higher levels of the acidic form will reach the blood and thus more of the excess gets excreted when the body cannot utilize it”

              this is on a topic about calcium retention and incidentally showed that food affects blood pH, this is the reply by james”

              So what is the problem? I was explaining one of the major errors the researchers of the study you posted made. Thus the study DID NOT back your claim of acidosis causing bone loss.

          • James says

            Bean: “Bean: “quoted from your statement,
            “The main effect ALL foods provide as far as pH goes is the fact that all foods are metabolized in to acids in the long run, many of which are essential to our health, energy production and existence.”
            Bean: “doesnt this meant that certain food will increase acids in the body ? ””

            No. You are overlooking a simple concept called “balance”. Any tiny increase in acidity will be met with an increased elimination of acid, usually by increased respiration to maintain that balance.

            Let me give you an analogy that may make this concept easier for you to understand. Let’s say you go out in a boat each day to the middle of a lake with a water inlet and a water outlet. If you dumped a bag of salt in to the lake each day for even for a thousand years if possible would the lake ever become salty? Of course not. The lake is going to maintain its fresh state by constantly having fresh water coming in flushing the salt out of the lake through the outlet of the lake. So the same thing is going on in the body. Even though all foods are being metabolized in to acids, not all those acids are entering the blood. And the ones that do end up in the blood are partially utilized and the rest eliminated almost entirely through respiration followed by kidney elimination of hydrogen ions. On the opposite end if the blood starts to become to alkaline then respiration decreases and kidneys start to retain hydrogen ions thus bringing the acidity back up. Thus the pH is constantly regulated so that neither acidosis nor alkalosis occur except in EXTREMELY rare instances such as some poisonings or diabetic ketoacidosis. Simply eating foods will not induce acidosis since again the body excretes or retains what it needs to maintain the narrow pH range it requires to survive.

            Bean: “James : “Yes, acids we can exist or function without. And yes, there is such a thing as too much of a good thing. But this is why the body has so many redundant systems to maintain its required acidity level.”

            Both statement given by you meant food will turn into acids which justifies food does affect pH”

            You are stretching things again to fit your needs. I have said in the past that yes foods will metabolize in to acids essential to the body. This includes carbonic acid necessary for various things in the body and that does alter blood pH to help the body to maintain the pH it requires for survival. But as I also said diet will not have any significant direct effect on blood pH. Blood pH is maintained primarily through respiration followed by kidney excretion or retention of hydrogen ions. None of this has anything to do with diet supposedly alkalizing the blood and does not involve using up alkaline reserves as you claimed previously. Any role diet will play in alkalizing any part of the body will be indirect and minor. For example, diet can provide the amino acids that eventually lead to the formation of albumin, which in turn has a minor effect in buffering acids. The “alkaline ash” IS NOT having any direct or major effect on pH regulation of the blood.

            And you keep overlooking the simple fact that if any excess acids end up in the blood it is promptly reduced. This is why everyone is not dropping dead immediately from eating since ALL foods are metabolized in to acids.

  29. bean says

    To james,

    As to your question on “But explain to everyone here how it is that athletes with high protein consumption, which is considered acidic, still maintain a high bone density if your hypothesis is true?”

    if u claimed that u study so much articles on human body, u, yourself already know the answers.

    its our body’s compensatory mechanism that takes place. when we uses particular part of our body more, our body will grow accordingly. eg. if we use our biceps more, it will grow stronger (hypertrophy), and vice versa, if u dont use it, it will undergo atrophy.

    while high protein consumption is recommended for athletes, to repair tissue damage and for muscle growth etc, the diet is optimal for them, but its a totally different story for people who doesnt exercise, i am sure i dont have to explain this right ?

    Too much protein actually supports the acid-alkaline theory if u think about it carefully.

    • James says

      Bean: “As to your question on “But explain to everyone here how it is that athletes with high protein consumption, which is considered acidic, still maintain a high bone density if your hypothesis is true?”

      if u claimed that u study so much articles on human body, u, yourself already know the answers.”

      Yes, I have known the answer for a very long time. And it has NOTHING to do with pH. So why are you dancing around answering my question for you? Because you don’t understand how the body really works as I have pointed out so many times?

      Bean: “while high protein consumption is recommended for athletes, to repair tissue damage and for muscle growth etc, the diet is optimal for them, but its a totally different story for people who doesnt exercise, i am sure i dont have to explain this right ? ”

      Trust me, knowing how little you understand the human body I definitely don’t want you trying to explain anything. I prefer facts to fairytales.

      For example, a high protein intake does not benefit athletes anymore that the average person. The average person can only utilize roughly 3 ounces of protein daily. Even top athletes only roughly 3.5 ounces of protein daily. Anything in excess is just waste to the body that the body then has to deal with spending energy to eliminate.

      Bean: “Too much protein actually supports the acid-alkaline theory if u think about it carefully.”

      Actually anyone really thinking factually about this would realize that this does not support the acid-alkaline HYPOTHESIS (Its not a theory, learn the difference!!!).

      Let’s see how smart you really are Bean. What is the highly toxic ALKALINE byproduct of the breakdown of protein’s amino acids? What are the two mechanisms by which protein directly and indirectly regulate pH? be very careful on how you answer this if you don’t want to make yourself look a lot more foolish.

      • bean says

        To james,

        there isnt a value to “high protein intake”
        i was just using back the words used by u. u used high protein intake so i used back the same. But it was understandable by anyone(maybe aside from u) that high protein intake means a diet that has increase percentage of protein compared to normal diet. But “high” has never has a value besides from what we humans valued it. To us, the “high” here, we understand it by higher than normal but its in optimal range. A “high value” which has been calculated by professionals and shared to the world. I didnt know how “high” is your value of protein intake. If the “high” is what u claimed it to be, everyone in the internet and books, or whatever papers will have to write a “higher protein intake which is not too high to be in excess” Imagine, the headline of a magazine, ” a higher protein intake which is not too high to be in excess helps athletes” its understandable that theres a limit to how high it can be, and need not written it down.

        what given in your statement meant athletes utilize more protein than a normal sedentary person.

        which is what i have been trying to explain to u, that the calculated “high protein intake” is optimal for the athletes (not in excess) to be utilize in different functions, eg muscle repair/growth and wont results in excess, unlike for normal people which will results in excess.

        and by why i said it actually supports the acid/alkaline diet “hypothesis”, is because

        quoted by you
        “Anything in excess is just waste to the body that the body then has to deal with spending energy to eliminate.”

        thats why, the “hypothesis” to reduce these net acid forming food is formed.

        PS : i am not smart. I never claimed i am. I never tried to look that way either. If u are trying to make me look foolish, good job, keep up the good work.

        • James says

          Bean: “there isnt a value to “high protein intake”
          i was just using back the words used by u. u used high protein intake so i used back the same. But it was understandable by anyone(maybe aside from u) that high protein intake means a diet that has increase percentage of protein compared to normal diet…………………..”

          Your rambling did not answer my question. Again, if protein intake causes acidosis as you claim and acidosis causes bone loss as you claim then how come athletes who tend to eat way more protein daily than the body can use do not end up with bone loss? Instead they have INCREASED bone density despite what you claim would be a highly acidic, bone depleting diet.

  30. bean says

    To james,

    if food doesnt affects pH, explain the treatment of metabolic acidosis, particularly in the oral form, sodium bicarbonate/potassium citrate etc.

    although those salts doesnt necessarily meant food, but u get where i am going at. Please dont reply that sodium bicarbonate etc are not food, i get it. Please short and simple, straight to the point, please dont explain other stuffs.

    • James says

      Bean: “if food doesnt affects pH, explain the treatment of metabolic acidosis, particularly in the oral form, sodium bicarbonate/potassium citrate etc.

      although those salts doesnt necessarily meant food, but u get where i am going at. Please dont reply that sodium bicarbonate etc are not food, i get it. Please short and simple, straight to the point, please dont explain other stuffs.”

      Do you even understand metabolic acidosis? If you think you do then you answer first what this has to do with diet to begin with.

      For example, if someone develops metabolic acidosis from drinking antifreeze then this is not diet induced. And as you pointed out the bicarbonates and citrates are not food. So what does this have to do with the topic?

      Furthermore, are you aware that the bicarbonates can induce acidosis?

      So I can see you are trying desperately to stretch things to make a point over things you really do not understand as usual. Just like in your last post where you tried to falsely claim that the study you posted proved foods do affect pH. The study made NO such claim or even implied it. You just keep twisting information to fit your needs.

      If you would spent as much time learning how the body really works as you do trying to argue over things you clearly do not understand then you would save both of us a lot of time.

      • bean says

        Dear my lovely james,

        i am at the verge of becoming crazy explaining to u not the hypothesis and stuffs, but in the questions itself.

        these are salts that go in through our alimentary canal right ? these are absorbed through the same mechanisms as other food right ? (through digestive system) these can increase blood pH right ?

        if u still cant understand my question, think of it as this way. If a food contains these elements or form these elements when absorbed into the blood, doesnt it increase the pH of the blood ?

        i dont know bicarbonates induce acidosis, but i do know that induces alkalosis. Normally i would like you to prove that it does induce acidosis but its irrelevant to the main topic so u can skip it.

        what do u meant by stretching things to make a point ? this is by far my most logical hypothesis to food does affects pH.

        i have to clarify here. i did not claim the stdy prove food affects pH. In fact, i even wrote that I KNOW that the stdy is NOT about food and pH but its about calcium retention. All i wanted is just to flash some accidental findings to your face. and again, i did not twist it.(evidence below)

        “While searching for how minerals are pulled out from bones, i accidentally came across this from ncbi.”
        “However this is a study about calcium retention not whether food affects acidity.”

        if u think i twisted it by copy paste some parts and not the other parts, press ctl+f and copy paste the sentence above to find the full comment.

        this is by far the lowest form i can go… i cant believe i have to go so low as to copy paste and find out where the comment i posted just to justify myself. i dont know why i keep on engaging in these useless argument with a person who is not open to new ideas. and worse, would go so low to defame other people.

        TQ james for bringing out the ugly side in me.

        • James says

          Bean: “these are salts that go in through our alimentary canal right ? ”

          Yes.

          Bean: “these are absorbed through the same mechanisms as other food right ? ”

          Not really. But I am not going to go in to a long explanation of the absorption of different food compounds since there are so many different food components absorbed by different means.

          Bean: “these can increase blood pH right ?”

          Not really. Have you ever heard of hyperchloremic acidosis? It can be caused by the consumption of chloride salts, the most commonly consumed. And some other salts, such as magnesium sulfate can also create acid. So can the salt, sodium bicarbonate (baking soda) that most people consider alkalizing.

          But let’s say that salt was alkalizing as you are implying. In that case beef, which is full of sodium, potassium, calcium and magnesium salts should be considered an alkaline food. Yet people who have fallen for the alkaline diet myth say beef is acid. Again a great example of people relying on assumptions instead of REAL science.

          Bean: “i dont know bicarbonates induce acidosis, but i do know that induces alkalosis”

          The risk of acidosis is dependent on several factors including the dosage and the method of administration. Administration by injection or IV can lead to acidosis from carbonic acid formation. Ingestion of baking soda is more apt to cause hyperchloremic acidosis from the sodium chloride formed by reaction with stomach acid.

          Bean: “i have to clarify here. i did not claim the stdy prove food affects pH. In fact, i even wrote that I KNOW that the stdy is NOT about food and pH but its about calcium retention. All i wanted is just to flash some accidental findings to your face. and again, i did not twist it.”

          Just because the title of a study sounds like it will back your assumption this does not mean it will. You need to actually read and understand the studies you are going to post as evidence. Again, the study you posted did not back your assumption and was heavily flawed to begin with.

          As far as wanting to “flash some accidental findings to your face”, this is not debate. This is game playing and simply wastes my time and makes you look foolish.

          Bean: “TQ james for bringing out the ugly side in me.”

          Nobody can bring out someone else’s ugly side. Only the person can do that themselves. That is like the addict claiming someone else forced them to shove the cocaine up their nose when they chose to do it themself. Don’t blame others for your bad behavior since as an adult you are responsible for your own behavior.

  31. bean says

    To James,

    u are really stubborn. i have to admit it u are the most stubborn person i ever met.
    and some of your answers doesnt really answers my questions

    while u yourself indirectly said food will increase acid contents in the body, and while i showed what u yourself wrote and asked for clarification, u gave an answer which is totally unrelated. all i want is just for u to clarify it. Not for u to explain acid-alkaline balance all over again

    Quoted from what u wrote again
    “One form that is very poorly absorbed (the alkaline form) and one that is highly absorbed (the acidic form). This higher levels of the acidic form will reach the blood and thus more of the excess gets excreted when the body cannot utilize it. ”

    this is your statement when i posted the ncbi’s report on some calcium retention stuffs which showed food affects pH. And again, what u wrote (above) again shows food does affect pH.
    Now that i realize it, your replies are always like this, u are trying to direct us to another point while giving contradicting statements yourself

    • bean says

      To everyone else who stumble upon the comment above, and have no time to read our full comment since the start, the statement in (” “) is actually the 2nd totally different statement given by james which again supports that food does affect pH.

    • James says

      Bean: “u are really stubborn. i have to admit it u are the most stubborn person i ever met.”

      Apparently you have never looked in the mirror. Yet here you are still arguing over things that you don’t understand as we will see.

      Bean: “and some of your answers doesnt really answers my questions”

      It is not my job to answer all your questions. But have you considered that the problem can also be that you don’t understand the answers? Again you give an example in the post I am responding to.

      Bean: “while u yourself indirectly said food will increase acid contents in the body, and while i showed what u yourself wrote and asked for clarification, u gave an answer which is totally unrelated. all i want is just for u to clarify it. Not for u to explain acid-alkaline balance all over again”

      One example of your not understanding an answer. Yes, ALL foods eventually metabolize in to acids. The things you don’t seem to understand are:

      -Not all those acids reach the blood, and when talking about pH balance we are talking about blood pH.

      -That the body needs various acids to exist, function and remain healthy. One of those primary acids is carbonic acid, which is produced by the metabolism of foods.The body uses what it needs and readily eliminates the rest thus maintaining a pH imbalance. If carbonic acids go dangerously low then the body starts retaining more CO2 to build up carbonic acid thus maintaining balance. Thus pH is maintained by maintaining carbonic acid levels. Minerals from the diet are not making this regulation as claimed and there is no direct role of diet in pH regulation as I said, or more specifically no significant alkalizing effect.

      Bean: “Quoted from what u wrote again
      “One form that is very poorly absorbed (the alkaline form) and one that is highly absorbed (the acidic form). This higher levels of the acidic form will reach the blood and thus more of the excess gets excreted when the body cannot utilize it. ”

      this is your statement when i posted the ncbi’s report on some calcium retention stuffs which showed food affects pH. And again, what u wrote (above) again shows food does affect pH.”

      Again, another great example of your lack of comprehension. The study you posted was full of errors as I pointed out. And it DID NOT show that anything altered the blood pH.

      I will try to explain this super simple concept to you once more and hopefully you will get it this time.

      The one form of calcium they used was well known for being poorly absorbed. Thus very little of this calcium would have made it in to the blood.

      The second form of calcium was pre-acidified and thus it did not inhibit absorption like the first calcium by neutralizing stomach acid. This this second form of calcium was absorbed significantly better. But the body can only utilize so much calcium at one time and there is a very dangerous condition known as hypercalcemia (excessive calcium) that can cause all sorts of side effects such as high blood pressure, constipation, confusion, muscle spasms, etc. So the body worked a little harder to excrete the excess calcium that was absorbed by the more absorbable form of calcium compared to the poorly absorbed form of calcium to prevent hypercalcemia.

      NONE of this had anything to do with the pH of the blood as you are falsely contending. Again, the problem is with your lack of comprehension and lack of understanding of how the body works.

      Bean: “Now that i realize it, your replies are always like this, u are trying to direct us to another point while giving contradicting statements yourself”

      Again, my replies are not contradicting. The problem is with your lack of comprehension of the answers that explain how things really work in the body.

  32. says

    To ADMIN: There are some comments on email notification but not on the listings aftermath. Is there a recall mechanism or people ask their comments to be removed afterwards? Just trying to understand how it works this way…

  33. says

    From my personal life, during the visit to my parents I eat fresh fruits, fresh fish from the sea (organic natural one) and get enough sunlight, and in around 2 weeks my metabolism gets well and I get fit and feel healthy. And when I am back to our urban lifestyle with its cuisine I feel older around 5 years immediately. I never seek what is alkali or what is acidic but recently I realized I dislike cola or any other synthetic drinks when I am on healthy cycle. Just a note…

  34. says

    Giving up hope on James or other James and Bean and Robin, I have refered to an MD on the subject who is an expert on body physiology and what he says:
    “Blood pH can go as low as 6.7 which was observed on diabetes II patients on metformin medication. So theoretically, any cronic exposure of EM forcing its way with voltage change and in turn a pH change (as Dr. Tennant claims) may decrease the blood pH. The balancing function of lungs and kidneys will not work perfect for a cronic exposure for long durations. Eventually, pH drop will be observed. ”
    Similarly EM exposure during night time suppresses the melatonin secretion. The only problem for me left is to find people working in high EM power density areas for a long time versus a control group which does not.
    As a bottomline, one may deduce from that expert’s opinion, your diet will surely effect your overall blood pH one day eventually if you are on a low pH diet for an extended period.
    Anyway, I still welcome any opinion for my thesis. I need POV. That is what one cannot artificially generate by himself more than a few ones still biased with one and the only.

    • James says

      Korkut: “Giving up hope on James or other James and Bean and Robin”

      Hi Korkut, I did not give any response because I have never seen any scientific evidence backing any of this. A lot of what is being claimed is all hypothetical, not theoretical. So there is a lot of assuming going on without any real solid evidence. Look at your own statement later in your post:

      “So theoretically, any cronic exposure of EM forcing its way with voltage change and in turn a pH change (as Dr. Tennant claims) may decrease the blood pH. ”

      Note the words “claims” and “may”. Again these are not words of proven fact. Claims without evidence is still a hypothesis, not a theory. And “may” is assumptive, not proven factual.

      Here is another part of your post:

      “The balancing function of lungs and kidneys will not work perfect for a cronic exposure for long durations. Eventually, pH drop will be observed. ”

      If this is the case then why is acidosis such an EXTREMELY rare condition?

      That statement is also putting the cart before the horse. To really start providing any type of evidence to that claim the researcher has to first prove that long term acidosis occurs to begin with before claiming the hypothesis that this decreases lung and kidney function. Then he would have to prove that this chronic acidosis really decreased lung and kidney function, then finally that this leads to a drop in pH to make it a theory. But how would he prove their is a drop in pH from decreased lung and kidney function when he is already claiming that the pH was low to begin with? And if you go very low, which really is a small drop, the person would be dead. Again, there is a lot of assumptions being made but I have not seen any solid evidence backing any of Dr. Tennant’s claims.

      Korkut:”Similarly EM exposure during night time suppresses the melatonin secretion.”

      Again, is there is any solid evidence in medical research verifying this claim?

      Korkut: “As a bottomline, one may deduce from that expert’s opinion, your diet will surely effect your overall blood pH one day eventually if you are on a low pH diet for an extended period.”

      Making deductions from hypotheses gets us nowhere. Evidence needs to be produced to even elevate the hypotheses to the level of a theory.

      For example, a person can form a hypothesis that a big meteor will strike the Earth next week. People can deduce from this unproven hypothesis that they need to be prepared for this supposed meteor. When it does not happen though the person making the hypothesis is made out to sound like a quack because most people have no idea what a hypothesis is and the people who took the hypothesis as a fact end up looking foolish. This is why we should not focus on hypotheses as sources of “evidence” because hypotheses lack real evidence to begin with.

      Real evidence has proven that diet has virtually no influence on blood pH. The only way anything ingested could potentially alkalize the blood directly is if the ingested substance was strong enough and was taken in sufficiently high enough levels to dangerously overwhelm the body’s pH buffering systems.

      • says

        Thanks for responding James.

        About the melatonin effects here is one example:
        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23051584?dopt=Abstract
        More you can find on http://www.emf-portal.de

        About the blood pH issue I dont want to chase shadows so trying to find effects of EM (electromagnetic) thru blood pH (since we cannot directly measure cellular level pH (for we could not even measure cellular voltage)) is terribly hard and finding diabetes type II patients (like using genetically modified rats for research) on metformine medication would be like next to impossible in statistically large numbers.
        “Healing is voltage” issue from Dr. Tennant could be right and even in that case it has no tangible use for me. If it is wrong than the whole issue will be down the drain.

        That is the reason I wanted to get different point of views.

        As you can see, I am not an expert on any of these and I just need some guidance not to enter a deadlock thesis at least from the very beginning.
        {A good opening is the key to winning in Chess.}

        That is the sole reason I wrote. So if you say, seeking acidosis in order to prove some effects of EM would be lunatic, I take your advise. I am yet sane.

        And if you have another proposal such an endocrine marker which is sensitive to EM or indirect effects of EM such as heat, you are very welcome.

        • James says

          Korkut: “About the melatonin effects here is one example:
          http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23051584?dopt=Abstract

          Interesting hypothesis, bu the study was not conclusive to anything. In fact they say that the results are inconclusive, so much more research needs to be done to prove one way or the other. This is from the link:

          “The results show that this comparison does not seem to be consistent despite the fact that it offers an advantage of drawing attention to the importance of the exposure limits to weak EMFs. In addition to those inconsistent results, the following were also observedfrom this work: (i) the ICNIRP recommendations are meant for the well-known acute effects, because effects of the exposure duration cannot be considered and (ii) the significance of not replicating the existing experimental studies is another limitation in the power-frequency EMFs.”

          Korkut: “About the blood pH issue I dont want to chase shadows so trying to find effects of EM (electromagnetic) thru blood pH (since we cannot directly measure cellular level pH”

          Cellular pH can be measured and has been measured using microprobes. This is how they found out that the pH of cancer cells was more alkaline than that of healthy cells.

          Korkut: ““Healing is voltage” issue from Dr. Tennant could be right and even in that case it has no tangible use for me. I”

          I always saw it as voltage is healing. The body is electric and electricity is known to heal. For instance, it has been known for a long time that minute electrical currents can speed the healing of fractures. In fact, bone generates its own electricity to mineralize the collagen matrix. The ancient Greeks employed the electricity from electric rays and eels to heal. As little as one volt of electricity has been shown to destroy viruses. And even I used electricity to help grow back the end of my thumb after I cut it off in a table saw accident. So electricity can be healing.

          Korkut: “That is the sole reason I wrote. So if you say, seeking acidosis in order to prove some effects of EM would be lunatic, I take your advise. I am yet sane.”

          I never said anything about being lunatical. Again the evidence is lacking either way as to the effects of EMF on the body so I have no real opinion either way.

    • bean says

      dear korkut,
      sry for not replying, i didnt know the question was directed to me as well.

      i am not a doctor or any profession related to it so i dont know. Most of the comments i made with james are based on internet researches. Thats how i found out his lots of his claims are not backed by scientific studies either. and most of the times he is just trying to win an argument.

  35. Michele says

    Chris you said above: “In other words, regardless of what you eat or what your urine pH is, you can be pretty confident that your blood pH is hovering around a comfortable 7.4″

    So what does the urinalysis pH mean? Is there such a test as a blood pH test? I’ve got health records showing my fasting urinalysis pH was 5 in 1992, 5 in 2000, 7 in 2003, and 5 in 2014. I’ve always been a meat eater and don’t eat enough vegetables, but healthy at 64. It’s nice to know I don’t have to worry about my urine pH.

    • James says

      Hi Michele,

      I can answer that for you. Urinary pH does not reflect blood pH whatsoever. Urinary pH varies quite a bit more than blood pH naturally and can be influenced quite a bit by a variety of things. For example, dehydration can lower pH. Urinary tract infections can make urine very alkaline as bacteria use the enzyme urease to split urea to form highly alkaline ammonia to help the bacteria survive. In fact, most pathogens thrive in an alkaline environment contrary to all the alkalizing propaganda.

      Urinalysis is not a singular tests but can comprise a number of different tests such as testing for blood, glucose, ketones, pH, nitrate, sodium, calcium, white blood cells, etc. These tests can help with the diagnosis of numerous diseases and conditions.

      Some people also try to determine their blood pH through salivary pH testing. Again, this in no way reflects blood pH and there are various factors that can affect salivary pH such as dry mouth or not brushing the teeth.

      There is a blood test for blood pH, and blood is the ONLY thing that can be tested to determine blood pH. But blood pH RARELY goes out of range since either excess alkalinity or excess acidity can both cause health issues and possibly death. Therefore, the body has numerous redundant systems to maintain its pH within normal range. This is also why your body maintains its pH regardless of what you eat.

      • Michele says

        Thank you James. I imagine all the 5’s in my urinalysis pH tests were due to “dehydration”. I must have a “survival” gene because I am rarely thirsty and “don’t drink enough water”. I don’t drink at meals and just drink when thirsty and I’m rarely thirsty. I’ve got other markers on blood tests that list dehydration as a possible cause.

      • says

        Hi James,

        Would you please illuminate me on this subject? We are trying to find out the effects of electromagnetic exposure on living organisms by utilizing the cell voltage cell pH relation. It is almost impossible to get the cell pH so falling back to blood pH or saliva pH does not save the day either. There is surely an effect of EM so what kind of a marker you could propose to track it?
        Dr. Tennant was the one to claim this cell voltage health and cell pH issue altogether.
        Kind regards,
        Korkut

  36. vishva Mitra says

    so please how u explain that countries with the most dairy and meat consumption have much higher rate of osteoporosis ??
    thank you,

    • James says

      Diets high in meats and dairy tend to be low in two key nutrients needed to maintain the collagen matrix. Ascorbic acid and orthosilicic acid. As bone collagen is lost there is less surface area for mineralization resulting in osteoporosis.

      High intake of dairy and red meats can also lead to other bone disorders such as osteopenia and osteomalacia due to the high protein content and high phosphorus content. High protein blocks calcium absorption, but not phosphorus absorption. The increase in phosphorus absorption in to the blood leads to pseudohyperparathyroidism. As a result excess parathyroid hormone is released resulting in a loss of calcium from bones.

  37. says

    Chris,

    This is your first series of posts that I’m going to have to preliminarily disagree with. Thirty years ago, I got a B.S. in Nutrition Science from one of the top nutrition schools in the country — UC Davis. Current nutrition thinking even back then, was based on “research”. And we knew so very little compared to what we know now. Yet, we know so little today compared to what we’re learning and will learn in years to come. In my experience, I would hardly rule something out (like an alkaline diet to help certain health issues) based on what limited research has actually been done. Just because studies have not yet been done to prove something one way or another is not enough. If I based my health, or all the people whom I help with their health, on current research — then I wouldn’t get very far. Sometimes we have to try the unresearched until we find what works.
    And regards the field of curing CANCER, if you’ve ever had it, and looked for natural or alternative cures to cancer, then you’ll know how limited research really is! Anyone with cancer who wants to truly help themselves will use any tool available. That especially includes dietary practices that have worked for other survivors. That includes an alkaline diet — albeit with enough protein because the scientist in me knows that we need protein for just about everything in the body. One additional point is that different types of cancer (tumor vs blood) require different diet strategies, in the opinion of many including myself.
    That being said, it’s good to keep up on current research, just not to eliminate possible assistance needlessly.

    • James says

      Adele: ” I would hardly rule something out (like an alkaline diet to help certain health issues) based on what limited research has actually been done. ”

      It is more dangerous to assume something rather than to rely on evidence of what has been learned through research. And there is a lot more research available that you are implying. Look at PubMed and you will find so much research it can keep you reading for years.

      As an example of the dangers of assumption though let’s look at the false belief by some that injecting baking soda can cure cancer.

      Research has already shown us that cancer cells are more alkaline than healthy cells and they need that high alkalinity to survive and thrive. Attempting to alkalize them is not going to work as various research with other alkalizers such as cesium chloride and lithium chloride have shown. In fact, cesium chloride, which a lot of people have been duped in to using as a cancer treatment ha s not only been shown to cause cancer but also promote the growth of existing cancers in research. This could be due to in part the fact that research has shown that healthy cells when made excessively alkaline will morph in to cancer cells. Anyway, back to baking soda ingestion. People have incorrectly come to the conclusion that ingesting baking soda will kill cancer cells based on the work of Simoncini and a misinterpreted study often touted. Simoncini was injecting the highly concentrated baking soda solution right in to the tumor, which can kill cancer cells as well as healthy cells through the powerful osmotic shift this will cause. Same principle as injecting concentrated saline in to varicose veins to destroy them. This has nothing to do with alkalizing the cancer. The study often touted discusses how baking soda can help prevent metastases, which people often assume means curing the cancer. No, these ARE NOT the same thing. The enzyme hyaluronidase, which allows cancer cells to spread by breaking down hyaluronic acid is acid dependent for activation. The baking soda alkalizes the EXTERNAL matrix where the hyaluronidase is found thus inhibiting it. This DOES NOT kill the cancer cells as some people have misinterpreted the study to say.

      There is still the dangers to drinking the baking soda as well. When ingested the baking soda will come in to contact with the stomach acid neutralizing both the stomach acid and the baking soda forming sodium chloride and carbonic acid. Neutralization of the stomach acid leads to decreased methylation promoting cancer, allows ingested pathogens including cancer causing microbes to survive easier and leads to decreased nutritional uptake and immune suppression that can further promote cancer. In addition, all the salt formation can lead to hyperchloremic acidosis.

      Injection of baking soda in to the body must also be done carefully since the injection can also lead to ACIDosis from the carbonic acid formed as the baking soda reacts with acids in the body. This is why doctors have to be so careful when injecting sodium bicarbonate (baking soda) in hospital settings for the treatment of acidosis since the sodium bicarbonate can also induce acidosis.

      Again, people need to know how the body works and the chemistry of what they are doing to themselves with treatments to be safe. Assuming things, especially based on other people’s assumptions posted on the internet is just asking for trouble.

      As far as the so-called “alkaline diet” even this is a very misleading term since most of the so-called “alkaline foods” are loaded with naturally occurring acids. And ALL foods stimulate the same alkaline response and ALL foods are eventually metabolized in to acids within the body. So there is NO such thing as an “alkaline diet”. On the other hand, nobody is discounting the foods promote in the mythical “alkaline diet”. The foods being promoted are more nutritious that most other foods. Although we still have to keep in mind that if people are neutralizing their stomach acid with garbage like ionized alkaline waters or baking soda in attempt to alkalize the already alkaline blood they are not gong to be absorbing many of those nutrients. Again, people need to understand how their bodies work and the chemistry of what they are doing rather than relying on assumptions just because they did not look at the vast amount of research readily available.

      Adele: “And regards the field of curing CANCER, if you’ve ever had it, and looked for natural or alternative cures to cancer, then you’ll know how limited research really is!”

      Again not limited at all if people actually look. I am in the process of writing a book on holistic cancer therapies right now. Even though I have been researching cancer for over 30 years I am still finding vast amounts of research on cancer I have never seen before. For example, just last night I found research showing high dose estrogen once being used as an effective treatment for some hormonally sensitive cancers including some breast cancers. It was later replaced though with more dangerous estrogen blockers like Tamoxifen.

      Adele: “Anyone with cancer who wants to truly help themselves will use any tool available.”

      Some of those tools can conflict with each other. Again, people need to understand how the body works and the chemistry behind what therapies they are doing to help keep themselves out of danger.

      Adele: “That especially includes dietary practices that have worked for other survivors. That includes an alkaline diet — albeit with enough protein because the scientist in me knows that we need protein for just about everything in the body. ”

      It is not that hard to get sufficient protein, even from plants. In fact, some plant sources are higher in protein that meats. But there are also different qualities of protein. Not all sources are complete proteins for one. And protein sources can contain various compounds that can be detrimental such as hormones, arachidonic acid, high phosphorus or enzyme inhibitors. Or they can contain beneficial anticancer compounds such as phytic acid, acidic polyphenols, phytoestrogens, etc.

      Also keep in mind that the body only requires roughly 3 ounces of protein daily. Excess is just going to increase the stress on the body as the body has to deal with the waste products such as the highly alkaline and extremely toxic ammonia formed from amino acid breakdown. Even though a food such as meat, grain or vegetable is not 100% protein with the standard 3 meals a day it really is not hard at all to meet the body’s daily protein requirements.

      But getting hack to the mythical “alkaline diet” once again, the benefits of this type diet IS NOT from alkalizing since the diet does not really alkalize. That is why the so-called “alkaline diet” is a myth. Instead, benefits come from the higher nutritional level including the various beneficial, anticancer compounds they can provide such as chlorogenic acid, acidic polyphenols, phytoestrogens (found in all plants), fibers that get fermented in to beneficial acids, etc. And again, when people fall for the alkalize for health myth they often do stupid things like consume baking soda or drink ionized alkaline waters that neutralize stomach acid leading to impaired nutrient absorption, immune dysfunction and increased risk of cancer. So I will say it again. People need to learn how the body actually works and the chemistry behind what they are doing rather than rely on their assumptions or the assumptions made by other people on the internet. Again, there is massive amounts of REAL research readily available for anyone who wishes to look for it. It is incredible as to how much we have really learned about the human body even in just the last 50 years. But not looking for the research DOES NOT mean it doesn’t exist.

  38. Daisy says

    It is very interesting as there is evidence to support both theories. However neither side can conclusively prove their claims. What I did find interesting is the use of bi-carb soda in treating some cancers, namely colon or skin cancers. Dr Toullio Simoncinni’s work in this area is gaining a lot of interest and many others are also using this method. The one thing that does appear to be undisputed is that diets high in vegetables and fruits, result in statistically lower incidences of cancer, heart disease, arthritis and diabetes. I have seen many published studies claiming this to be true. Even the American Cancer Council and American Heart Foundation mention this on their websites. With a number of studies also accessible through the National Institute of Health. Without constantly taking blood samples from people to determine whether the acid / alkaline theory does in fact play a significant role in the development of disease, we can probably only continue to speculate. Whether we are for or against the theory, it may simply be the removal of processed, refined foods, and the addition of nutrient, antioxidant, phytochemical and fibre rich plant foods, that are in fact resulting in less incidence of disease.

    • James says

      Daisy: ”

      Daisy: “It is very interesting as there is evidence to support both theories. However neither side can conclusively prove their claims.

      I have yet to see any REAL evidence to back the alkalize for health hypothesis, or the hypothesis that you can even alkalize the body through diet. As pointed out previously ALL foods are made acidic in the stomach then the chyme alkalized in the intestines as the “alkaline response”. Then ALL foods are eventually metabolized in to acids.

      It has also been pointed out numerous times that even the so-called “alkaline foods” are generally loaded with naturally occurring acids.

      Bottom line is that there really is no such thing as an “alkaline food”.

      Daisy: “What I did find interesting is the use of bi-carb soda in treating some cancers, namely colon or skin cancers. Dr Toullio Simoncinni’s work in this area is gaining a lot of interest and many others are also using this method.”

      There are several important facts that people keep overlooking when referencing Simoncini. First of all the neutralization of one acid with baking soda produces an acid called carbonic acid. This is why when baking soda is given intravenously in a hospital setting it must be used with extreme caution to prevent rebound acidosis. And if ingested the baking soda is neutralized by the stomach acid producing not only carbonic acid, but also a lot of sodium chloride, which can cause hyperchloremic acidosis.

      It has already been shown in various studies that cancer cells have a higher than normal pH that healthy cells. Cancer cells need this higher that normal alkalinity to survive and thrive. When their proton pumps are blocked the cancer cells become acidic killing them.

      Studies have also repeatedly shown that alkalizers such as lithium chloride and cesium chloride DO NOT kill cancer cells. In fact, it has been shown that highly alkaline cesium chloride often touted as a cancer treatment not only causes cancer, but also promotes the growth of existing cancer cells.

      What Simoncini was doing was injecting the sodium bicarbonate (baking soda) directly in to the tumors. This can kill cancer cells, but this has NOTHING to do with alkalizing since as pointed out the neutralization of any acid will simply form more acid. The process can kill cancer cells through a strong osmotic shift, which can kill cancer cells as easily as healthy cells. Therefore, in my opinion it is not much different than chemotherapy in the fact that the therapy DOES NOT selectively kill cancer cells. If you want to understand this process better research sclerotherapy for varicose veins in which a concentrated sodium chloride solution is injected in to the varicose veins to destroy the tissue. Again, this has NOTHING to with alkalizing.

      And keep in mind that some of Simoncini’s patients died from his therapy. One reason this may have occurred is because the therapy, just like chemotherapy and radiation therapies, can destroy healthy cells just as easily as cancer cells. Or it is possible that Simoncini’s therapy killed these people from the rebound acidosis induced by the sodium bicarbonate injections.

      I do believe Simoncini is on to something here, and there is a scientific basis to how his therapy could kill cells. Unfortunately this also includes healthy cells. And Simoncini would have been taken more seriously if he had not been touting ridiculous, bogus claims such as cancer is Candida. Then he confuses Aspergillus for Candida even though they ARE NOT the same thing and are not even related.

      In fact, studies have proven that alkalinity promotes Candida overgrowth and pathogenicity. Alkalinity does this by turning on the Candida growth gene and by morphing the Candida from its benign yeast form in to its pathogenic fungal form.

      Also keep in mind that EVERYONE has Candida, it is a normal inhabitant of the body. Not everyone has candidiasis though, which is the overgrowth of fungal Candida. In its fungal form the Candida forms finger-like projections known as hyphae that allow the Candida to dig in to the tissues causing tissue damage and inflammation, but not cancer. And again, the Candida morphs in to this pathogenic fungal form in an alkaline environment. If Simoncini was correct and cancer and Candida were the same thing then everyone would have cancer, which IS NOT the case. I have heard the claim that everyone does have cancer by several people including some doctors. But this is a complete myth. I am not going in to an explanation of this here. It is a long explanation and I already covered this in depth in the book on holistic cancer therapies I am working on. In short though if everyone was developing cancer cells daily as claimed then none of us would be here.

      Daisy: “The one thing that does appear to be undisputed is that diets high in vegetables and fruits, result in statistically lower incidences of cancer, heart disease, arthritis and diabetes. I have seen many published studies claiming this to be true.”

      Agreed, but this has NOTHING to do with alkalizing. Especially considering the fact that ALL foods including fruits vegetables, meats, candy bars, etc. will metabolize in to acids in the long run. There is NO such thing as a truly alkaline food. And again, most of the foods incorrectly called “alkaline foods” are full of naturally occurring acids. And again, ALL foods produce the same “alkaline response”, which is simply pancreatic bicarbonate neutralizing the acids in chyme as it exists the stomach to protect the intestines. This has NO effect on blood pH as is often falsely claimed.

      Daisy: “Without constantly taking blood samples from people to determine whether the acid / alkaline theory does in fact play a significant role in the development of disease, we can probably only continue to speculate.”

      Or we can add a little common sense and think about the well known fact that the body can only live in a very narrow pH range. If acidosis or the extremely more dangerous alkalosis occurs we can die. This is why the body has so many redundant systems to maintain its pH and why both of these conditions are so extremely rare. If foods really produced excess acidity or alkalinity as is so often claimed by the alkalize for health supporters then people would be dying right and left from acidosis and alkalosis just from eating. But the fact is that diet does not really alkalize the blood and actually has virtually no direct influence on blood pH. The main effect on blood pH from food is indirect, and involves the production of beneficial acids by the metabolism of ALL foods, including fruits and vegetables. Virtually all pH regulation though is controlled by respiration, followed by kidney retention or elimination of hydrogen ions, not diet.

      Bottom line here is that common sense tells us that pH has very little to do with most disease since pH imbalances are EXTREMELY rare as where diseases are very common.

      Daisy: “Whether we are for or against the theory, it may simply be the removal of processed, refined foods, and the addition of nutrient, antioxidant, phytochemical and fibre rich plant foods, that are in fact resulting in less incidence of disease.”

      And there is the answer to why the so-called “alkaline diet is more healthy. It has NOTHING to do with alkalizing but rather the higher levels of nutrients, phytochemicals, which include a number of beneficial acids, and fibers that promote health in large part by the beneficial acids they are fermented in to.

      • says

        Dear All Guests,

        This is an open request whoever can guide.
        I am PhD student working on electromagnetics trying find a mechanism on the effects of EM onto body and one way it seems is the electrical effects on the body. Dr Tennant from US claims a voltage health relation and he also connects it further into pH with a voltage versus pH relation. To note this is not the blood pH but the cell pH. It is definitely very hard to sample cell voltages but could be easier to find cell pH. Don’t know.
        Now any comments, advise, guidance will be welcome. I am an EE so I may stumble on deep medical terms.
        QEEG loreta system I heard for brain related such sampling. Looking for its details. Bring on more please.
        Regards,
        Korkut

  39. Flowrut says

    I figured all references were coming from “Abstract”. Those studies are not showing the details. The value of them is nothing.

    • James says

      Abstracts are just a summary of the study and the results. This does not invalidate the study and the entire studies can be found if someone wants more details such as how the study was designed and conducted.

  40. Arc says

    This article is BS. I’ve seen the alkaline diet work from a friend within months. And I see all the obese sickly people pulling into McDonald’s for their daily fix of addictive food product. There’s a reason why the US has sick care (we neglectfully call it ‘healthcare’)….its because they make money off of sick people. You people trying to debunk this…well, you make me sick but you’re not going to make a dime off me in the hospital.

    • James says

      Nobody is claiming the so-called “alkaline diet” is not healthy. What has been pointed out over and over but the alkaline supporters cannot seem to grasp is the fact that the so-called “alkaline diet” DOES NOT alkalize the body. In fact the so-called “alkaline foods” are often loaded with naturally occurring acids. And like all foods the “alkaline foods” are eventually metabolized in to acids. The health benefits of the so-called “alkaline diet” is the result of the higher nutritional value including acidic vitamins. It has NOTHING to do with altering the blood’s pH to obtain health benefits.

  41. Alexander Montgomery says

    So I just wanted to put this out there. FOR ALL TYPE 1 DIABETICS. The artifical insulin they give us has an acid base. After being this product for less then a year my blood ph registered as 4.7.
    BEWARE! They don’t list this as a problem and can make it a lot harder on our kidneys then they already are. I also was starting to see my insulin not be as effective as it was. So I started eating a tablespoon of baking soda a day and my ph is around 6.0 now and going up after about month. HAVE YOURSELF CHECKED!!!

    • Rocco says

      If you your blood pH was 4.7, you would have already died. The pH stays in a very narrow range. And through breathe and kidneys can adjust anytime.

  42. Maggie Percy says

    I don’t recall blood pH being the factor cited when I read or was told an alkaline ash diet was better than acid. So I am a bit confused on that point, since I don’t recall blood ever being discussed.

    However, I have heard and it seems possible that an overall acid-producing diet paves the way for imbalance that lets cancer and other things get a hold and grow, because they are more suited to that environment than they are to a more ‘natural’, less acid-producing diet.

    I know there is a lot more to this than meets the eye. I deal in energy work, and it’s obvious that no one diet is proof against disease. It’s what you think that matters. Yet, I do subscribe to the belief that a more ‘natural’ diet is less acid-forming and healthier and sometimes seems to rectify health issues.

    What part of the change in diet is causing the healing in your opinion? I would have felt the shift in pH was helping, but you must have another opinion? You aren’t saying we should all eat grain or anything else we like, because it doesn’t matter what we eat as long as our kidneys are working, are you???

    • James says

      Your article does back up all I have been saying all along.

      For example, the article states:

      “The relationship between carbon dioxide and bicarbonate is additionally underlined by the fact that the infusion of sodium bicarbonate increases carbon dioxide production and arterial pCO2, as it was first documented in 1956 [23, 24].”

      Increased CO2 increases carbonic acid levels, which backs what I have been saying all along about how sodium bicarbonate (baking soda) therapy actually increases acidosis.

      In fact, they bring up another potential source of acidosis from the use of baking soda where they write:

      “The anions most frequently encountered in conditions leading to metabolic acidosis are chloride (hyperchloremic acidosis)”

      And:

      “8.1.1. Hyperchloremic (Nonanion Gap) Acidosis

      An increase in the plasma concentration of chloride out of proportion of sodium causes hyperchloremic acidosis. The relative increase in plasma chloride may be due to either exogenous administration of chloride in excess of sodium or a decrease in the plasma sodium concentration with no change in the chloride level.”

      Hyperchloremiic acidosis can be induced by too much sodium chloride (“table salt”). When people ingest baking soda the baking soda reacts with stomach acid dangerously neutralizing the stomach acid while generating large amounts of sodium chloride as the sodium from the baking soda combines with chlorine from the stomach acid. The excess of the Cl- displaces the bicarbonate ion leading to acidosis.

      In addition, the ingestion of baking soda can also induce diarrhea, which in turn can also lead to a loss of bicarbonate ion leading to metabolic acidosis.

      The article you linked also goes in to what Mr. Kessler and I have been explaining over and over about how respiration and hydrogen ion retention or excretion the primary means of pH regulation for the body. As we pointed out diet has very little influence on maintaining the alkalinity of blood.

  43. Faisal says

    The article starts off stating: “The more ridiculous claim is that we can change the pH of our blood by changing the foods we eat”. So the author believes that drinking 3 liters of coke a day would not influence your bloods pH level? If you inject acid into anything, it is obvious it gets more acidic. Even a school kid could tell you that. Obviously the body CAN adjust the pH level by grabbing calcium from the bones and teeth, otherwise we would be dead, but it is easier for the body to adjust the pH to a normal level if we don’t fill it with acid. Maybe those who claimed to have done those clinical trials work for Coca Cola or McDonalds. Usually there is some hidden vested interest behind such articles, that are expensively sponsored on Facebook and Google, like this one. Either way this article is total rubbish.

    • James says

      Faisal: “So the author believes that drinking 3 liters of coke a day would not influence your bloods pH level? If you inject acid into anything, it is obvious it gets more acidic. Even a school kid could tell you that. ”

      Even a school kid knows that ingesting something and injecting something ARE NOT the same thing. If you ingest 3 liters of Coke it is not going to kill you right away like injecting 3 liter of coke in to your body.

      When we ingest anything though whether alkaline or slightly acidic it is going to be made acidic in the stomach. Then the acids in the chyme will be neutralized by pancreatic bicarbonate as the chyme leaves the stomach.

      Even when the blood starts to become acidic for some reason again it is respiration that is the main means of pH regulation. Next is hydrogen ion retention or excretion by the kidneys. Followed by various other means of pH regulation before minerals will be removed from bones and teeth. The body only uses minerals from bone as a very last resort. And considering that this takes extremely severe acidosis, which is extremely rare the bones are almost never used as a source of pH balance. This is just one of those myths that keep getting circulated in the alkalize for health circles that they can never back with any evidence because it is not true to begin with.

  44. James says

    Daniel: “So what he’s saying is don’t bother trying to eat healthy, just do what you want because in his opinion, this stuff doesn’t work. ”

    That is not even close to what was said. The article WAS NOT about what is healthy or unhealthy to eat. It was just about the simple fact that you CANNOT change your blood pH through diet.

    If you want to discuss foods that are healthy vs unhealthy then find a blog article on that topic. But don’t assume someone is saying something they were not saying just because they are discussing a completely different topic than you assume they are discussing.

  45. Daniel says

    So what he’s saying is don’t bother trying to eat healthy, just do what you want because in his opinion, this stuff doesn’t work.

    Sounds like someone who doesn’t want to practice self control and remember that we, as a whole have been patterned to be unhealthy and it’s not some hokey, hippie idea.

    Go ahead give up on being smart about your diet gain weight, get huge with all the problems that come with it, maybe you’ll at least die content… and very young.

    Worst article to put out there, to discourage people from eating better foods.

    • M.M. says

      Yep, if the body regulates virtually everything, including counting of calories and weight, why are we bothering about eating the paleo way?

      PS.: Thanks, Jefferson, for giving me this link, but I happen to bump into this site some days ago and enjoying it.

  46. says

    Simply wish to say your article is as astounding.
    The clearness in your post is just spectacular and i can assume you are an expert on this subject.
    Fine with your permission allow me to grab your feed to keep updated with forthcoming post.
    Thanks a million and please continue the enjoyable work.

  47. Hannah says

    THANK YOU so so much for posting this article. These diet trends are ridiculous! Its really disturbing to think that people will believe anything they hear!

    • Francesco says

      He has lost many points……..at root life is bioelectrical let consider Ph balance and redox balance as bioelectrical balance , life need a relatively more quote of negative charge, electrons are the more little antioxidant and alcalizer. the blood has to’ be in strict ranges and especiale p h. Each eritrocite can carry from 1 million to’ 14 million of electrons, tris is a real alcaline reserve of blood , we need electrons for energy i.e. Mitocondrial oxidative phosphorilation, and for sustaining flow… Of nutrients one way catabolites and toxins the other way. Our blood is a colloid as Our lymph mucus , flam, we are 80 percent water, the more of that in colloidal state so let study water and colloid! In evryday practice we confront with that. let see at ESR erithrosedimentation rate. The ESR dépend mostly from two Things fibrinogen and other cationics protein mostly infiammatory and ROS , the other side there is zeta potential the electronegatives charge of blood. more plus charge and ESR is higher , blood sticky sludge and slow ( blood stasis and congestion ) more negatives charge , the ESR is low and blood fluid. tris happens be cause in colloidal state negative elettrical charge surround particles, cells allowing repulsion dispersion and flow one Things that affect mostly zeta potential is pH……

  48. knapsta says

    These comments are all very well, but annoyingly ego-based, point-scoring, pride laden ‘digs’ at others’ views. There is so much dietary information out there, it is easy to make a claim, then counter it, then counter that, ad infinitum. For me, a slim and healthy 65 year old, football playing, non-smoking., non-drinking vegan, it is a no brainer not to eat meat. Firstly, a clear conscience to a large degree (nothing dies for my diet); secondly, it’s liberating to break the habits of a lifetime (brought up with meat and dairy); thirdly, I don’t have to buy in to yet more hypocrisy (let’s go watch a cute animal cartoon about a cute talking piggy with the kids, then feed them pork sausages for tea…..etc etc etc. Man evolved from a primeval swamp, progressed through stages to what we now call ‘modern man’. At some point we will surely develop a deeper level of consciousness and learn about better, kinder ways to exist. As a vegan, I feel I am, in a small way, at the forefront of this next stage of human development.

    • James says

      Here is a post I did on the comments in response to someone posting the same old myths about acidity causing cancer by decreasing oxygen. I also address some claims of the article itself:

      “These myths were disproven decades ago.

      The biggest problem with your claim is the part stating that acidosis leads to cancer by decreasing oxygen levels to the cells. First of all it is alkalosis that leads to decreased oxygen, not acidosis. Acidity is required to release oxygen from hemoglobin to tissues. Alkalosis inhibits this leading to tissue hypoxia. Alkalosis also decreases circulation by constricting blood vessels and in severe cases leads to death due to suffocation from contraction spasms of the lungs.

      The whole “primitive form of respiration” claims come from a hypothesis by Otto Warburg who thought cancer cells had a respiratory defect that led to their generating most of their energy through anaerobic glycolysis. Warburg’s hypotheses were disproven decades ago.

      Modern research has proven that not only are cancer cells highly dependent on oxygen for survival and growth, but they generate at least 50% of their energy through oxidative phosphorylation (OxPhos), which requires sufficient oxygen. Even though cancer cells rely less on OxPhos, cancer cells have been shown to have a much higher affinity for available oxygen than healthy cells.

      In fact, it is the death of early cancer cells that stimulate the formation of angiogenic growth factors such as vascular endothelial growth factor, which increases the oxygen supply to malignant tumors increasing their growth and survival.

      Modern research has also proven that the internal pH of cancer cells are more alkaline than healthy cells. Cancer cells maintain this alkalinity to allow them to survive and thrive. They maintain their alkalinity by exporting the acidic hydrogen protons formed from energy production in to the external matrix. When the proton pumps are blocked the cancer cells become acidic killing them.

      Modern research has also shown that when healthy cells are made excessively alkaline these healthy cells morph in to cancer cells.

      If you do your homework you will also find that many of the best natural cures for cancer are acids. Betulinic acid, chlorogenic acid, acidic polyphenols, etc.

      Acidosis is actually extremely rare, as is the extremely more dangerous alkalosis.

      The article is rather misleading as well as respiration is the body’s primary means of pH balance. Dumping or retention of protons by the kidneys is secondary. Buffering by proteins or calcium phosphate are not primary means of pH regulation. In fact, using calcium phosphate from bones is a last resort. Most calcium loss from bones is due to hyperparathyroidism and pseudohyperparathyroidism, which have nothing to do with acidosis.”

  49. cheryl says

    James,
    knowing about the PH of cancer cells and surrounding area, are there treatment programs for ca based on this?

    • James says

      Hi Cheryl,

      Sodium bicarbonate has been used to reduce uric acid acid levels formed during the destruction of cells. I prefer to use nettle leaf for the same purpose since it is much safer and provides a lot of nutrition and immune support. Oral or IV injection of sodium bicarbonate though do not kill cancer cells.

      Studies have been performed looking in to blocking the proton pumps of cancer cells. Studies have shown that when this is done the cancer cells go from a highly alkaline internal pH to an acidic internal pH, which kills the cancer cells.

      I still feel ozone therapy is the most effective cancer therapy ever devised. Ozone does not kill cancer cells by adjusting pH, but rather through the formation of peroxides. Ozone also has other cancer fighting benefits such as killing cancer pathogens, destroying many carcinogens and immune stimulation.

      James

  50. says

    I think there is a danger some people think Acid-Alkaline balance refers only to blood pH and we can safely ignore factors leading to acidosis elsewhere.

    I felt it was important to draw attention to the way Intestinal alkaline phosphatase regulates protective surface microclimate pH.
    We also have to bear in mind “Acidic priming enhances metastatic potential of cancer cells”.

    • James says

      Edward Hutchinson: “I think there is a danger some people think Acid-Alkaline balance refers only to blood pH and we can safely ignore factors leading to acidosis elsewhere.

      I felt it was important to draw attention to the way Intestinal alkaline phosphatase regulates protective surface microclimate pH.”

      Alkaline phosphatase is responsible for dephosphorylation. It DOES NOT alkalize anything. The “alkaline” part of “alkaline phosphatase” refers to the fact that it functions in an alkaline environment.

      Edward Hutchinson: “We also have to bear in mind “Acidic priming enhances metastatic potential of cancer cells”

      Also incorrect. This myth has been disproven over and over. Studies have shown that cancer cells not only have a higher internal alkalinity than healthy cells, but also that excess alkalinity of a healthy cell will morph it in to a cancer cell. I already posted medical journal references to these facts earlier.

  51. says

    Intestinal alkaline phosphatase: novel functions and protective effects.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24506153
    Important protective roles of intestinal alkaline phosphatase (IAP)–including regulation of intestinal surface pH, absorption of lipids, detoxification of free nucleotides and bacterial lipopolysaccharide, attenuation of intestinal inflammation, and possible modulation of the gut microbiota–have been reviewed recently.
    IAP is modulated by numerous nutritional factors.
    The present review highlights new findings on the properties of IAP and extends the list of its protective functions.
    Critical assessment of data suggests that some IAP properties are a direct result of dephosphorylation of proinflammatory moieties, while others (e.g., gut barrier protection and microbiota shaping) may be secondary to IAP-mediated downregulation of inflammation.
    IAP and tissue-nonspecific alkaline phosphatase isoforms characterize the small intestine and the colon, respectively.
    Gastrointestinal administration of exogenous IAP ameliorates gut inflammation and favors gut tissue regeneration, whereas enteral and systemic IAP administration attenuates systemic inflammation only.
    Finally, the IAP gene family has a strong evolutionary link to food-driven changes in gastrointestinal tract anatomy and microbiota composition.
    Therefore, stimulation of IAP activity by dietary intervention is a goal for preserving gut homeostasis and health by minimizing low-grade inflammation.

    • James says

      And again your point? You keep posting studies without stating what your reasoning for posting the study is making the studies irrelevant.

      What does this have to do with the myth that you can alkalize the blood through diet?

  52. Olga says

    Also, James, what is the best source of the protein? As a mother who just had a child and nursing I am having a had time with nutrition intake. Meat is out for me for 20 years plus, dairy as well, allergic to eggs and peanuts. Fish is on the menu, but all that information about mercury make me want to limit it. What do I have left? Beans, nuts, peas, hemp and brown rice protein. Is it enough to get all I need? My blood tests showed I am far from anemic.

    • Paleo Huntress says

      Olga,

      In Chris’ podcast RHR: The Truth About Toxic Mercury in Fish, he interviews Dr. Nicholas Ralston, an expert in mercury in fish and the protective effects of selenium. In that post, you’ll find this-

      “[M]ost people do not eat enough cold-water, fatty fish, and this is especially true of pregnant women. Concern about mercury toxicity is one of the main reasons for this. But as you’ll learn in this episode, such concerns are unfounded and not supported by the science.”

      Check it out!

    • James says

      “Also, James, what is the best source of the protein? As a mother who just had a child and nursing I am having a had time with nutrition intake. Meat is out for me for 20 years plus, dairy as well, allergic to eggs and peanuts. Fish is on the menu, but all that information about mercury make me want to limit it. What do I have left? Beans, nuts, peas, hemp and brown rice protein. Is it enough to get all I need? My blood tests showed I am far from anemic.”

      It really is not that hard to meet your daily protein needs. The body can only utilize roughly 90 grams of protein a day. Even major athletes can only utilize slightly higher amounts. Anything in excess is simply waste the body has to exert a lot of energy to make non-toxic and eliminate.

      Therefore, you can easily meet your protein needs with nuts, seeds, grains, etc. In fact, the highest protein sources are from non-meat sources. Beef for example is only about 22% protein as where fish is about 24% protein. Pollen is 30% protein, chlorella is 60% protein and spirulina is 95% protein. The only animal source of protein that comes close to spirulina are bugs, ants and bees being the highest in protein. And like pollen they contain the full range of amino acids.

      • Paleo Huntress says

        James, this is where you and I will disagree– unless you have a very different resource for your numbers.

        Olga, I’ve no doubt that protein needs can be met without meat, but there are very few (likely no) plant sources with more protein than meat.

        According to the USDA database, spirulina is 48% protein and doesn’t have an especially good PDCAAS score. (Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score). FWIW, ALL plant sources are deficient in sulfur-containing amino acids, so though some are “complete” in the sense that they contain all of the “essentials”,

        Chlorella is 57% protein (USDA database), close to 60%. But there is some concern that regular consumption of it may lead to autoimmune issues as the LPS it contains is great for kicking up your immune response during flu season, but having your immune response on high alert chronically is likely not beneficial. Chronic exposure to LPS leads to chronic inflammation even in small amounts, which is not a desirable state of affairs. Specifically, systemic LPS-activated macrophages in the brain have been implicated in progressive degeneration of brain neurons and may be responsible for Parkinson’s disease. (not proof, but certainly worth a read)

        According to the USDA database:

        Haddock is 92% protein
        Tuna is 91% protein
        Beef brisket is 70% protein
        Beef sirloin is 65% protein
        Salmon contains 60% protein

        And just in case you’ve heard this fairytale about broccoli having more protein than a steak, it contains 26% protein.

        Finally, this 2010 review found current protein significantly underestimated–> Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2010 Jan;13(1):52-7 This is pretty close to James’ recommendation but addresses many of the WF/PB community’s claims that protein recommendations are currently too high.

        And the current recommendation during pregnancy is 25 grams per day, ABOVE then the norm.

        • Paleo Huntress says

          (I managed to delete part of the comment while posting…)

          This should read,

          “FWIW, ALL plant sources are deficient in sulfur-containing amino acids, so though some are “complete” in the sense that they contain all of the “essentials”——-”

          ——-but they aren’t contained in the ideal proportions, and the way I understand it, you’d need to eat more overall to net more of the sulfurs.

        • James says

          Hi PaleoHuntress,

          I will start with the claims that plants are deficient in sulfur amino acids.

          Sesame, soy and Brazil nuts are all examples of plants higher in the sulfur amino acid methionine than beef.

          We also have to keep in mind that methionine is generated from the methylation of homocysteine.

          Plants are lower in cysteine, but cysteine is also synthesized in the body and is not needed in high levels. In fact, high levels are toxic.

          Also keep in mind these two facts.

          1. When measuring amounts of amino acids the amounts are based on small amounts of food, usually 100 grams. Since most people consume much more than a 100 grams of food per day they are getting well over the amount of the amino acid content listed for that food.

          2. People’s diet should not and do not consist of one food source. Doing so would not be safe. Only eating beef every day is not healthy just as eating only broccoli every day would not be healthy. We need a varied diet to get varied sources of nutrition and to prevent deficiencies.

          Deficiencies do not only result from a lack of nutrients within a food but can also result from a food blocking nutrient absorption or utilization. For example, did you know that high protein blocks calcium absorption? This is one of the reasons dairy leads to bone loss. But plants provide high levels of silica and organic acids that help with calcium absorption.

          As another example, it is a common myth that the reason people get sleepy after a Thanksgiving dinner is from the tryptophan in the turkey. Problem with this hypothesis is that high protein blocks the conversion of tryptophan in to calming serotonin. The real reason people get sleepy is because all the food needs to be digested and blood gets shunted away from the brain to the stomach making the person tired.

          Not sure which USDA database you go tthose figures from but they don’t get even close to matching up with the figures from this USDA database, which shows protein values far under what you are quoting. For example haddock showing 16.32 grams of protein per 100 grams of meat:

          http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/4496?fg=&man=&lfacet=&format=&count=&max=25&offset=&sort=&qlookup=haddock

          That is not even close to 92% protein. That’s less than 17& protein.

          And what does the USDA list the protein content for Tuna? Not 91%, but rather less than 25% for three different types of tuna:

          http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/4580?fg=&man=&lfacet=&format=&count=&max=25&offset=&sort=&qlookup=tuna

          http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/4584?fg=&man=&lfacet=&format=&count=&max=25&offset=&sort=&qlookup=tuna

          http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/4587?fg=&man=&lfacet=&format=&count=&max=25&offset=&sort=&qlookup=tuna

          Beef brisket is listed by the USDA as having less than 22% protein, not 70% protein.

          http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/3979?fg=&man=&lfacet=&format=&count=&max=25&offset=&sort=&qlookup=beef+brisket

          Beef sirloin less than 30% protein, not 65% protein.

          http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/3934

          And salmon is listed by the USDA as less than 22% protein on three different species of salmon. This is way lower than 60%.

          http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/4541?fg=&man=&lfacet=&format=&count=&max=25&offset=&sort=&qlookup=salmon

          http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/4548?fg=&man=&lfacet=&format=&count=&max=25&offset=&sort=&qlookup=salmon

          http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/4544?fg=&man=&lfacet=&format=&count=&max=25&offset=&sort=&qlookup=salmon

          Spirulina is listed by the FDA as just over 57% protein, which is much higher than the meat sources you listed, but I question the USDA testing here for several reasons. First of all the other lists I have seen for protein content were much higher. In addition, the USDA lists the spirulina as a seaweed. Spirulina is not a seaweed. In fact, it is not even an algae, it is a cyanobacteria. Being the USDA does not know the difference causes me to question what they really tested.

          As for the claims about chlorella and autoimmunity this is VERY misleading. Part of the problem is that most medical “professionals” really don’t understand autoimmunity. They are under the assumption that autoimmune disorders involve an overactive immune system when in fact it is just the opposite. There is immune suppression through adrenal gland dysfunction leading to the over production of low affinity (nonspecific) antibodies. This is why things that suppress the immune system such as stress, stimulants and steroids actually aggravate autoimmune conditions. If the immune system was overactive these things would improve the condition, not make it worse.

          Chlorella does contain polysaccharides that can increase white blood cell activity. On the other hand so do many other foods. Many other foods also contain vitamin C, which also increases white blood cell activity. So the chlorella-autoimmune claims are scare tactics.

          As for the review, that is all it is. A review. Not a study supporting anything with real evidence and not reviewed by other sources.

          Regardless, most people get well over the recommended daily allowance for protein already.

          James

          • Paleo Huntress says

            James,

            We are talking about the percentage of the macros to each other, right? (protein, carbohydrate, fat) You can’t count water content, most certainly not if you intend to compare a raw piece of meat to freeze-dried seaweed. I mean, throw in another 1/4 of water while cooking your grains and they lose a percentage of protein?

            I would appreciate some intellectual honesty.

            • James says

              Intellectual honesty? I listed the protein amounts based on how they are consumed. Again spirulina IS NOT a seaweed, nor i chlorella. And both are consumed dry. Unless you are eating jerky the meats are not dry. But if you bother to check your “USDA database” that is not a database for the USDA at all you will find that the difference in protein content between the raw meats and cooked, which has less of a water content is minimal.

              Even if ALL the water content was removed from the meat sources you mentioned they still would not come close to the protein percentages you quoted, nor do they match or exceed the protein content of chlorella or spirulina. In fact, using your non-USDA “database” we see that even beef jerky, which is dry is still only 45% protein, which is still well below the protein contents you claim for beef:

              http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/snacks/5332/2

              So if you want talk “intellectual honesty” I can think of a couple of places for you to start.

          • Paleo Huntress says

            You know exactly what database I’m using because I linked to it. =) Please note, the database actually GIVES the percentage of protein in each food cited, it doesn’t require calculation.

            100 grams of cooked edamame (soybeans) contains 141 mg of methionine.

            100 grams of cooked ground beef contains 656 grams of methionine. That’s 4 and half times more than the soybeans.

            The following is a table showing the methionine content of different foods. (http://morelife.org/food/methioninecomparison.html)

            Meat and eggs have more than even isolated soy protein… and though sesame seeds and brazil nuts are indeed high, you’ll have to consume about 600 calories for same equivalent and if the more than 600 calories in the brazil nuts doesn’t get you, the toxic levels of selenium you’d have to consume likely will. By energy content (protein/fat/carbohydrate), plant foods are deficient in sulfur containing aminos.

            The review is just a review… my acknowledgement of this was clearly stated with, “not proof, but certainly worth a read”.

            • James says

              PaleoHuntress: “You know exactly what database I’m using because I linked to it. =) Please note, the database actually GIVES the percentage of protein in each food cited, it doesn’t require calculation.

              100 grams of cooked edamame (soybeans) contains 141 mg of methionine.

              100 grams of cooked ground beef contains 656 grams of methionine. That’s 4 and half times more than the soybeans.”

              What happened to ‘intellectual honesty”?

              I did not realize the blue lettering on your food source names were links initially. When I realized this I clicked on them and found out that they WERE NOT to a USDA database as you claimed.

              According to the actual USDA the protein content of the foods you listed come nowhere close to the protein contents you claimed that USDA stated. They were actually almost right on to the values I gave originally.

              So again, where did you come up with these values such as your claim of haddock being 92% protein when the actual USDA puts the protein content as less than 17%? Were you being honest about the percentages or even that the percentages came from the USDA database?

              And why are you all of a sudden jumping from percentage of protein to methionine content? Methionine is not protein.

              And the milligrams of methionine is various foods is not really that relevant for the reasons I gave earlier.

              By the way selenium may be toxic in high doses, but it is also essential to the body to keep it healthy. Just like water is essential to the body but can kill you in high doses. So please, show some intellectual honesty here.

            • James says

              PaleoHuntress,

              I forgot to ask where you got those protein percentage values again. You stated:

              “You know exactly what database I’m using because I linked to it. =) Please note, the database actually GIVES the percentage of protein in each food cited, it doesn’t require calculation.”

              So I went back and read through your first link again for haddock from this non-USDA database you claimed was a USDA database. NOWHERE does it give the percentage of protein as you claim. And NOWHERE does it claim haddock has anywhere near the 92% protein content you claimed the site said it had. Not even the RDA percentage of protein for haddock is 92%. So once again I am asking where did you come up with these percentage of protein figures since the links you provided as “evidence” DO NOT come even close to supporting your claims. So where or how did you come up with the inflated protein percentages for the meat sources you listed?

        • James says

          PaleoHuntrress,

          I was just looking at your references for protein content and don’t see where you are coming up with your values.

          First of all your links ARE NOT to the USDA whatsoever. And they don’t show anywhere near the protein content you are claiming for these meats. For example, your link for the protein content of haddock is:

          http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/finfish-and-shellfish-products/4060/2

          So what did this link show for protein content of haddock? 36 grams of protein per 150 grams of fish, which is nowhere close to 92% protein that you claim. If you want to make it easy change the grams of fish to 100 grams on the link and they show 24 grams of protein per 100 grams, which is only 24% protein, which again is not even close to the 92% you claimed.

          • Paleo Huntress says

            James,

            The link is to the calculator, and this calculator uses data from the USDA database… at the bottom of each food entry you find this statement-

            “Source: Nutrient data for this listing was provided by USDA SR-21.”

            When you click the link, please look at the upper right hand corner where you’ll find a breakdown of macros represented both by a triangular pictogram and text.

            Once the water is removed (and why would we even look at water?), haddock is 1% carbohydrate, 7% fat and 92% protein.

            • James says

              Just because they reference the USDA this does not make them a USDA database.

              And the water is factored in because the meat is being consumed with the water intact. That is intellectual honesty. It isn’t if someone is going to take away the water. That is like saying if I extract everything but the iron in beef that the beef is 100% iron.

              So haddock is not anywhere near 92% protein as you keep claiming and is only 24% as I stated earlier.

              From the triangle you refer to in your link it does say 92% protein under “caloric ratio”. But this IS NOT the actual protein content of the food. What they are saying is that 92% of the calories are being derived from the protein in the haddock. 1% of the calories is coming from the carbohydrate content and 7% of the calories from haddock are being derived from the fat. That is why the triangle is about the “caloric ratio” NOT the composition of the meat.

              Again, haddock is only 24% protein and 1% fat unless you factor in the cholesterol, which makes the fat content 26%. according to your link. IN fact, using your link and some common sense, if the haddock composition is 26% fats, then how can it be 92% protein? Not even taking in to account the water content you are already up to 118%. Must be some mutant fish caught from near Fukishima ;-).

          • Paleo Huntress says

            If we look at the same data, of the 150 grams in the filet, 111 are water. That leaves 39 grams of solids, 36 grams of which are protein. 36 is just over 92% of 39.

            Therefore, the haddock is 92% protein according to the USDA’s data.

            • James says

              Wrong for the reasons I stated above.

              But again, using YOUR own reference go scroll down to where it says “Nutritional Information”. I suggest switching to 100g of haddock to make it easier to follow. How many grams does it say 100 grams of haddock contains? 24.2 grams, our roughly 24% protein, not 92% protein. Now, what does it say about water content? 74.3 grams, which is roughly 74% water.. I messed up on the last post. I did not catch that the cholesterol was milligrams, not grams. So the total fat content is just over 1%. So we have 24% protein, 74% water, 1% fat and the rest consisting of things like minerals and carbohydrates to make up the 100% composition.

              And again, to intellectually honest as you claim to require then the composition should be listed in a manner it is consumed, not by isolating one compound out the meat to inflate the percentage.

              • Paleo Huntress says

                James,

                I’m sorry for the late reply– I’ve been busy with a sick family member for a couple of weeks.

                While it’s true that the calculator I reference is not the database itself, the data matches EXACTLY in both formats. The calculator saves us the time of doing out the math, but if you compare ANY entry at all, you’ll find that the data is identical. And this is because the SOURCE of the data is the same. I guess you can continue to suggest that the calculator isn’t a viable source, but all evidence says it is, and if you’re not happy with it, you can certainly reference the USDA directly and do your own math, but after you’ve wasted your time doing so, you’ll come to the same numbers the calculator comes to.

                Anyway…

                Chlorella and spirulina are freeze-dried foods, and before consumption they are rehydrated in water or a beverage of some sort, no, most people do NOT consume it dry. (The average serving is 2-5 teaspoons or 1-15 grams) The average serving of a piece of fish (or other meat) is 4 oz which is 113 grams, but hey, if you can show me someone spoon-eating 113 grams of dried chlorella or spirulina in a sitting, I’ll take it all back. (Ever eat powdered hot cocoa mix by the spoonful as a child? ~cough~) To be intellectually honest, the composition should be listed in a manner it is consumed… right?

                You could still argue that people consume them in encapsulated form though, so to be fair, let’s compare that to the dried versions of the animal foods. People certainly consume dried fish and meat, and these versions would be a more intellectually honest form to compare to dried plant food sources.

                100 grams of chlorella contains 58 grams of protein. (58% protein) <– This is the equivalent of as much as a 100 SERVINGS!
                100 grams of dried cod contains 63 grams of protein. (63% protein) <– This is 2.5 servings
                100 grams of dried beef (not jerky which has added sugar) contains 64 grams of protein. (64% protein) <– This is 2.5 servings

                The foods below aren't whole foods, but like chlorella and spirulina, they're added to liquids quite often for their protein content–

                100 grams of dried egg whites contains 82 grams of protein (82% protein)
                100 grams of dried whey contains 78 grams of protein (78% protein)

                My intention was not to "inflate" the percentage, it was to reference the amount of ENERGY in a food that comes from protein. Water is water. It doesn't provide calories, it doesn't satiate, it doesn't suppress hunger. Using your logic, if you mix 2 ounces of chlorella into 2 ounces of water, your chlorella loses 50% of its protein. If you mix it into FOUR ounces, it's down 75%– and what started as 58% protein is down to a mere 14.5%… How is that honest? And then there's the water you drink with your meal and any water your other foods might contain too. As I pointed out earlier, you cook a cup of rice in two cups of water, or you cook it in three, the rice contains the same energy and nutrition, the only difference is how much water it absorbs. Looking at the energy ratio over volume IS intellectual honesty- but even if we compare it 'dried apples to dried apples', the animal food contains more protein.

                • James says

                  Paleo Huntress: “I guess you can continue to suggest that the calculator isn’t a viable source,”

                  That is not what I said. What I was pointing out was that according to your own reference the percentage of protein you are claiming is way overinflated as I have shown.

                  Paleo Huntress: “Chlorella and spirulina are freeze-dried foods, and before consumption they are rehydrated in water or a beverage of some sort, no, most people do NOT consume it dry. ”

                  First of all you are being misleading again. Chlorella and spirulina are generally taken as a tablet or powder, which are DRY forms. Even if added to something like a smoothie the protein content DOES NOT change. If there is 30 grams of protein in the amount of dry powder added to the smoothie there is still 30 grams worth of protein being added to the smoothie. The water does not dissolve the protein reducing its content.

                  Regardless, you are overlooking another simple concept. The body only needs roughly 90g of protein a day. And this is not hard to achieve especially considering that most people eat at least 3 meals a day and also snack. Each one of those meals provide protein as can snacks.

                  Therefore, regardless of the protein content of chlorella, spirulina or meats people are not saying I am going to have one meal a day with ___ grams of _____ to get ____ grams of protein. People have been eating for thousands of years without counting their protein intake and guess what? Humans have managed to survive all this time!!!

                  Therefore, making comments such as ” if you can show me someone spoon-eating 113 grams of dried chlorella or spirulina in a sitting, I’ll take it all back” is really asinine since people are not making a single meal out of one thing to meet their protein needs.

                  Anyway, I am done arguing over this. You just don’t get it and keep twisting things to fit your needs wasting my time.

                  Paleo Huntress: “

  53. Olga says

    Another question for James, what do I suppose to do with 3000 alkalizing machine now besides cleaning? Can I use it just a greatly overpriced purifier and drink neutral water from it? Would it be a good source of water?

    • James says

      “Another question for James, what do I suppose to do with 3000 alkalizing machine now besides cleaning?”

      They make great boat anchors :-)

      “Can I use it just a greatly overpriced purifier and drink neutral water from it? Would it be a good source of water?”

      I doubt if these really purify the water. If the machine purified the water then the minerals would be removed. But you need to have minerals in the water to form the mineral hydroxides that form the alkaline water.

      The acid water though is great for watering roses, tropical plants and other plants that prefer acidity. The acid water would also be good for aquariums with fish that need slightly acidic water.

      Or add some of the acid water or other acid source, such as lemon juice, to the alkaline water to neutralize the dangerous mineral hydroxides while creating beneficial mineral salts.

      Personally I prefer spring water. If I cannot get spring water I use reverse osmosis water with minerals added back to the water before drinking it.

  54. Olga says

    Also, You say that one cannot get vitamin B12 from plant sources. If I take B12 supplement, which is vegan, does it mean that it is useless? I have not been eating meat for last 20 years and eggs (even though I love them), cause ache in my ears (I guess allergic reaction), where do I get B12?

    • James says

      “Also, You say that one cannot get vitamin B12 from plant sources. If I take B12 supplement, which is vegan, does it mean that it is useless? I have not been eating meat for last 20 years and eggs (even though I love them), cause ache in my ears (I guess allergic reaction), where do I get B12?”

      Commercial B12 used to be derived from the sewers since B12 is synthesized from our intestinal flora.

      B12 is now synthesized by microbial fermentation of brown rice.

      Meat or eggs are the best sources of B12. Otherwise you can use a sublingual B12 supplement as methylcobalamin (active B12) as opposed to cyanocobalamin (inactive B12).

      Since B12 stores in the liver it does not need to be taken in massive doses or on a regualr basis.

      • Olga says

        Well, I am taking balanced B Complex by Mega Food. It does not say if it is active or not. How do I know? Thank you so much for your great answers.

        • James says

          It is impossible to say. They are using a yeast as a source of the B vitamins, but this could mean they are either fermenting something with the yeast, which is the most likely, to obtain the B vitamins or they are extracting the B vitamins, which is unlikely due to cost of extraction.

  55. Olga says

    Hello James, I have a few questions for you. First of all, you mention silica helps osteoporosis, but you cannot just take it in as a supplement. What could be done to improve osteoporosis? What diet changes would help and what supplements if any? Also what kind of diet do you think is most beneficial? I saw in your posts you are against dairy, but what about meet? What do you think about China Study? I am rather confused with all the abundance of information about nutrition. Also is gluten bad for everybody or just for those sensitive to it? Thanks

    • James says

      Hi Olga,

      “First of all, you mention silica helps osteoporosis, but you cannot just take it in as a supplement. What could be done to improve osteoporosis?”

      Silica is the most important because of its role in collagen formation. Remember that osteoporosis IS NOT a loss of bone minerals but rather a loss of collagen matrix.

      Silica is poorly absorbed so I do not rely much on normal supplements unless acid sources are added to aid in absorption. The easiest way to get silica is with food grade diatomaceous earth. I add a spoon full to a gallon of water and let it settle out. Then I drink the water part way down, fill the container again and let it settle out again repeating this process over and over. Each time new water is added a tiny amount of the silica is dissolved in the water forming orthosilicic acid, which is the form of silica the body absorbs and utilizes. The presence of acid aids in this conversion, which is why silica levels decline with age since stomach acid declines with age.

      That spoon full of diatomaceous earth will last several years if done properly, but I generally dump it out every 6 months and put new diatomaceous earth in. An ounce of diatomaceous earth is about $0.40 an ounce and will probably last about 10 years.

      The easiest indicator that you are absorbing and utilizing the silica is that the fingernails become hard and inflexible after a few weeks.

      Other good silica sources are bamboo, nettle leaf, butcher’s broom, couch grass and seaweeds. I do not like horsetail grass (shavegrass) due to its vasoconstrictive properties. See:

      http://www.medcapsules.com/info/Silica_Diatomaceous%20Earth%20vs%20Horsetail%20Grass.htm

      Good sources of the other less important nutrients include alfalfa and nettle leaf for the minerals and gelatin for the amino acids.

      Exercise is very important since the mineralization of bone is dependent on the pressure exerted on the silica molecules during exercise.

      “What diet changes would help and what supplements if any? Also what kind of diet do you think is most beneficial? I saw in your posts you are against dairy, but what about meet?”

      Red meat intake should be limited since they are high in phosphorus due to inducing pseudohyperparathyroidism. Same with colas.

      Avoid caffeine and limit intake of refined sugars.

      The diet should consist primarily of vegetables. Fruits are fine and meats are OK in moderation.

      Vitamin C sources are the second most important.

      “What do you think about China Study?”

      Here are some posts I did addressing Campbell and the “China Study”:

      http://curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=1873862#i

      http://curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=1874196#i

      http://curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=1874509#i

      http://curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=1874285#i

      “Also is gluten bad for everybody or just for those sensitive to it?”

      Just to those who have true Celiac disease or a gluten intolerance. And even those with a gluten intolerance can generally still consume some forms of gluten without ill effects.

  56. Garry Walton says

    Hi Chris
    I would appreciate you making a distinction between ignoring the snake oil salesmen of Alkalinity who talk about rebalancing the body pH and the targeted oral use of pH 8+ alkaline water to denature Airway Pepsin in LPR sufferers like myself. I’m sure you know of Jamie Koufman in NYC who has researched this and professors Bardhan & Dettmar who are experts on the dangers of Pepsin in the airways as a catalyst for cell damage. Pepsin as you know remains dormant but stable in epithelial cells up to pH 8 when it is denatured.
    This use is both effective and low cost.
    I have read with interest your views on low acid as a cause of GERD and recommend your ideas on my Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/refluxhelp
    which tries to advise sufferers who get blank looks from their doctors.
    Regards Garry (justpassingthrough)

  57. michael says

    People posting on health related threads like this should be encouraged to post links to the own photos: “listening” to our bodies is surely important, and so is seeing the manifestation of health.

    To the original author: I got 30 comments in, and couldn’t find anyone supporting your theories that spoke of the astounding, and growing sums of money spent on antacids/acid reflux in the modern world. This could be seen as tangential to a discussion of blood ph (in your argument), but it is directly relevant to initial aspect of ingesting acidic/alkaline foods, or food that produce these conditions in the digestive system.

    • James says

      The fact that antacids and acid blockers are some of the largest selling pharmaceuticals is a pretty well known fact. Maybe you should try doing some real research rather than relying on 30 alkaline supporters that don’t know squat to begin with.

  58. Cinzia says

    Hi All,

    I’m late to this party, but I am a great believer in the pH diet. I followed it a while back when I had some GI issues and it really worked for me. However, I was dubious about some of the science, if a little interested in the fact that it relied on ‘fringe’ theories (I work in a Uni and am aware that not being accepted does not mean not being right in peer reviewed papers etc.). However, my main issue with the debate is ‘does it really matter?’ When I followed the diet it seemed to basically say eat more leafy green veg, fruit and good things than meat, grains, alcohol, dairy and bad things. Not don’t eat certain things or only eat certain things, but balance. Since following the diet I got into good habits – an extra portion of veg on my plate, a salad if I had spag bol the day before, leave the skins on potatoes when mashing… and guess what? Doing this stuff made me feel better… Whether you ascribe to it being because of a pH issue, a hydration issue, a paleo diet, anti-parasitic, or whether these are just useful ways to explain a more complex issue to the lay person, it can’t do anyone any harm, surely, to eat more veg? My ‘pH balanced’ diet looks suspiciously similar to a pre-war diet with a few curries chucked in for good measure. The exact nature of why it is better is always going to be a complex mix of issues, theories, disciplinary differences and misunderstandings. But the fact that I eat better is surely the best outcome?

    • Paleo Huntress says

      Yours is a very thoughtful comment, Cinzia, but I think it DOES matter. Perhaps not to the person who bought a book and followed the diet and got some relief from eating whole foods instead of junk food for the first time– but our current understanding of nutrition and health is rife with misinformation brought on by correlative data rather than causative data.

      This thread is a great example of the damage that false “common knowledge” does later when trying to explain the true mechanisms of diet and physiology, and how much resistance and push-back there is from people who were previously misinformed by well-intentioned souls. Maybe for the average person, the “why” won’t matter, but what about the person with some sort of deficiency, dysbiosis or intolerance who is avoiding a food (or group of foods) that could be exceptionally helpful to them out of fear that it is “acidifying”?

      If you give people honest information, they can be trusted to make the right choices. We don’t need to trick them.

    • James says

      Hi Cinzia,

      Paleo Huntress brings up a good point. Take for example, what if a person is anemic and is eating what is deemed as an “alkaline food” such as kale loaded with oxalic acid that binds with iron preventing its absorption? Or avoids red meat and eggs that are considered “acidic” leading to a B12 deficiency since you can’t get true B12 from a plant based diet.

      Then there are other issues. For one when people are falsely convinced they are acidic people may resort to dangerous practices such as drinking ionized alkaline water or consuming baking soda in an attempt to alkalize even though their blood is already alkaline. This will not only stress the body more as it has to deal with this temporary alkalosis, but also presents numerous other health problems by neutralizing the stomach acid. These health issues can include increased risk of cancer and heart disease in the long run. And what if the person has high blood pressure from sodium retention and they are told to alkalize by ingesting backing soda (sodium bicarbonate), which reacts with stomach acid forming a lot of sodium chloride salt? These are just the tip of the iceberg of potential problems people are not being made aware of by ingesting alkalizers that they are being talked in to doing with all the alkalizing propaganda.

      Even outside all the potential health dangers there is still another issue. I have been working very hard for decades to expose fraudulent information in holistic health because I want to see holistic health legitimized. This is very hard to do when people keep making up and presenting totally bogus information, which makes holistic medicine look like quackery. For example, the claims that cancer is a survival mechanism or the claims that those big squishy blobs people pass after doing a “liver flush” are gallstones when they are in fact saponified oil and sterol-cholesterol complexes. In fact, even if these flushes dis work gallstones come from the gallbladder, which is not the liver. So why are they calling these “liver flushes”? This is the kind of quackery that keeps giving holistic medicine a bad name and keeps holding us back. It is not just the government and ‘big pharma”. We have more than enough people in holistic medicine repeating the same proven bogus information over and over to keep holistic medicine to be openly accepted without the help of government and “big pharma”.

      We could cure 100,000 people of cancer with holistic medicine and there would not likely be a peep in the media about it. But one person dies trying a bogus cancer therapy like oleander, cesium chloride or drinking baking soda and those are the stories that we are going to see making the news. So yes, holistic medicine is being targeted, but people pushing these bogus ideas and therapies are fueling the fire rather than putting it out by exposing these frauds.

      Is eating a healthier diet with more fruits and vegetables and less junk food a good idea? Of course, but don’t promote it as “alkalizing” when it has no real effect on blood pH. And don’t promote the diet as being helpful due to alkalizing when the diet is not making us feel better or healthier from alkalizing. Promote facts, not conjecture.

  59. Tina says

    This is what I know to be true. For most of my life, I would tarnish any metal I came in contact with. I don’t know what my PH was, but it was not the same as everyone else. During that time, I was never sick, my teeth never formed tartar, I had no body odor, had very low body fat (10-12%), and always had energy and good health.
    I no longer tarnish metal, and I now I feel sluggish, produce tartar, have normal body odor, and higher body fat (still average for woman). Something is different.
    My diet has actual improved…less sugar and carbs…but I think the negative changes have to do with PH. Now I am not saying eating differently would reverse things…I just know there is something to PH.

  60. says

    Whoops… now I’m getting confused: breathing faster than optimal ( more than 8 breaths per minute) raises blood pH of course!

    [Thereby reducing tissue oxygenation: Bohr effect/O2 haemoglobin dissociation curve; stimulating sympathetic nervous system, redistributing blood from core to periphery; tightening running & bracing muscles.]

  61. Sara says

    This article and discussion has been so helpful in getting my head straight about this topic. Thank you Chris and James. I understand the myths and realities so much better now.

  62. James says

    John: “The connection between alkalinity and cancer (or any disease): Alkalinity increases the availability of oxygen to the cells, while acidity decreases oxygen to the cells, making them prone to disease. ”

    Again, not true!!! First of all alkalinity DECREASES tissue oxygen levels for several reasons. Alkalinity constricts blood vessels, which decreases circulation. Alkalinity also prevents the release of oxygen from hemoglobin leading to tissue hypoxia. If the alkalosis is sufficiently bad the person will die from suffocation as the alkalosis will cause spasm contractions of the lungs preventing proper respiration.

    Many people still believe the myth that a lack of oxygen leads to cancer because of the numerous times Otto Warburg has been misquoted. Contrary to claims Otto Warburg:

    -Did not win the Nobel Prize for discovering cancer was caused from a lack of oxygen. Warburg won the Nobel Prize for his discovery of an enzyme he called “iron oxidase”
    -Never claimed cancer was caused from a lack of oxygen. Warburg believed cancer cells had a respiratory defect, and that they would continue to ferment glucose regardless of how much oxygen was present (the “Warburg effect”). Warburg’s hypotheses on the cancer cells having a respiratory defect and how they produced energy were later disproven.
    -Never claimed that any disease resulted from a lack of oxygen.
    -Never claimed that cancer was caused by acidity.

    Yet all of these are common statements made by the alkalizing supporters who keep making these false claims about what Warburg actually said.

    Modern research has revealed a lot about cancer including the fact that cancer cells not only need oxygen for survival, but they are highly reliant on oxygen and higher oxygen levels actually promote cancer growth.

    Cancer cells die in the absence of oxygen. This is seen in the initial growth of cancerous tumors that rely on oxygen diffusion to get oxygen. Once the tumor reaches 2-3mm in size though oxygen can no longer diffuse in to the tumor and the center of the tumor dies from a lack of oxygen. This stimulates the release of angiogenesis growth factors (AGFs) that stimulate blood vessel formation increasing oxygen levels to the tumor.

    Modern research has also shown that cancer cells derive at least 50% of their energy through oxidative phosphorylation (OxPhos), which requires oxygen, and that cancer cells have a higher affinity for oxygen than healthy cells.

    John: “We need the proteins, fats, B vitamins, and omega oils in animal foods just as much as we need the minerals, antioxidants, and polyphenols in plant foods. ”

    Proteins are made up of amino acids. Fats are made up of fatty acids. Some B vitamins are acids. Omega oils are fatty acids. Many antioxidants, such as vitamin C are acids. Polyphenols, such as tannic acid, are also acids.

    • Crystal says

      James,

      You are consistent and I understand why your tone is so straight forward. Too many people chime w/o reading enough of what you have so graciously took the time to share. I am a nursing student and still trying to begin to put much of this together. I wanted to thank you, I really have enjoyed this reading. I am so glad to of stumbled across it and will continue to follow you.

  63. says

    Thank-you for this write-up and information. Based on your analysis, could you please elaborate on the affects of Alkalinity and Cancer? Why does the natural health world promote the approach to thrive the body with Alkalinity and to reduce acidity to help with healing cancer naturally?

    • James says

      Hi Julia,

      This has all been addressed earlier in the comments, but here it is again so you don’t have to search:

      “Cancer cells themselves have an internal pH more alkaline than healthy cells. Studies have shown that not only does excessive alkalinity of cell cause healthy cells to revert to a cancerous state, but also that cancer cells need that high internal alkalinity to survive and thrive.

      The acidity you refer to is the external matrix around cancer cells. The external matrix becomes acidic because the cancer cells export acidic protons in to the external matrix to protect themselves from the acidity. When the proton pumps of cancer cells are blocked the cancer cells die from the build up of acid within the cancer cells.”

      Alkalizing will not cure cancer. That has been proven with research showing alkalizing lithium salts had no effect on cancer and alkalizing cesium chloride was not only cancer causing, but can also increase the growth rate of existing cancers.

      Many people will try to tout the work of Dr. Simoncini who killed cancerous tumors by directly injecting the tumors with baking soda (sodium bicarbonate). People who do not understand the basics of chemistry ran with this claiming the alkalizing effect of the baking soda cured the cancer ignoring several facts. For one the neutralization of acids with baking soda forms carbonic acid and therefore there really is not an alkalizing effect. Secondly, the most likely explanation for this is the baking soda was simply creating such as strong osmotic effect on the tumor that this is what killed the tumor. This same principle is used to destroy varicose veins, which is not even malignant tissue. The varicose veins can be injected with a strong saline (salt) solution creating a strong osmotic effect destroying the varicose veins.

      If alkalizing the cancer cells actually worked then the amount of alkalinity required would be lethal to healthy cells around the tumor long before it would be lethal to the cancer cells since the cancer cells require a higher alkalinity to survive and the higher proton production would buffer the alkalinity more effectively than in healthy cells.

      Unfortunately, people have taken the research of Simoncini and incorrectly assumed that ingesting baking soda would have the same effect. Most of the baking soda though is going to be neutralized by the stomach acid to begin with. In order to overcome this problem the person would have to ingest so much baking soda that it completely overwhelms the stomach acid which is very dangerous, and even more dangerous to cancer patients. This could exacerbate cachexia since a lack of stomach acid interferes with nutrient absorption. In addition, the lack of stomach acid actually increases the risk of cancer by decreasing methylation.

      The only potential benefit of ingesting baking soda with cancer is reducing metastases since hyaluronidase is acid activated, and reduction of pain by reducing uric acid. But the dangers of ingesting the baking soda far outweighs any potential benefits. And there are other, much safer ways, of reducing the risk of metastases and lowering uric acid.

      James

    • John says

      The connection between alkalinity and cancer (or any disease): Alkalinity increases the availability of oxygen to the cells, while acidity decreases oxygen to the cells, making them prone to disease. The Paleo diet is on the acidic side, but it also includes plenty of alkaline plant foods to balance the scales. We need the proteins, fats, B vitamins, and omega oils in animal foods just as much as we need the minerals, antioxidants, and polyphenols in plant foods. However, we must use supplements as well due to the poor soil conditions of today’s farmlands. See Dr. Otto Warburg.

  64. Molly says

    It’s interesting to me that you are advocating the Paleo diet and not taking a neutral stance.

    People need to do their own research.

    As a trained health care professional, my comment is that your information is not only misleading, but inaccurate.

    When people encourage you to “alkalize your blood,” most of them mean that you should eat plenty of foods that have an alkaline-forming effect on your system. The reason for making this suggestion is that the vast majority of highly processed foods – like white flour products and white sugar – have an acid-forming effect on your system, and if you spend years eating a poor diet that is mainly acid-forming, you will overwork some of the buffering systems mentioned above to a point where you could create undesirable changes in your health.

    For example, your phosphate buffer system uses different phosphate ions in your body to neutralize strong acids and bases. About 85% of the phosphate ions that are used in your phosphate buffer system comes from calcium phosphate salts, which are structural components of your bones and teeth. If your body fluids are regularly exposed to large quantities of acid-forming foods and liquids, your body will draw upon its calcium phosphate reserves to supply your phosphate buffer system to neutralize the acid-forming effects of your diet. Over time, this may lead to structural weakness in your bones and teeth.

    Drawing on your calcium phosphate reserves at a high rate can also increase the amount of calcium that is eliminated via your genito-urinary system, which is why a predominantly acid-forming diet can increase your risk of developing calcium-rich kidney stones.

    This is just one example of how your buffering systems can be overtaxed to a point where you experience negative health consequences. Since your buffering systems have to work all the time anyway to neutralize the acids that are formed from everyday metabolic activities, it’s in your best interest to follow a diet that doesn’t create unnecessary work for your buffering systems.

    Generally speaking, most vegetables and fruits have an alkaline-forming effect on your body fluids.

    Most grains, animal foods, and highly processed foods have an acid-forming effect on your body fluids.

    Your health is best served by a good mix of nutrient-dense, alkaline and acid-forming foods; ideally, you want to eat more alkaline-forming foods than acid-forming foods to have the net acid and alkaline-forming effects of your diet match the slightly alkaline pH of your blood.

    The following lists indicate which common foods have an alkaline-forming effect on your body fluids, and which ones result in acid ash formation when they are digested and assimilated into your system.

    Foods that have a Moderate to Strong Alkaline-Forming Effect

    Watermelon
    Lemons
    Cantaloupe
    Celery
    Limes
    Mango
    Honeydew
    Papaya
    Parsley
    Seaweed
    Sweet, seedless grapes
    Watercress
    Asparagus
    Kiwi
    Pears
    Pineapple
    Raisins
    Vegetable juices
    Apples
    Apricots
    Alfalfa sprouts
    Avocados
    Bananas
    Garlic
    Ginger
    Peaches
    Nectarines
    Grapefruit
    Oranges
    Most herbs
    Peas
    Lettuce
    Broccoli
    Cauliflower

    Foods that have a Moderate to Strong Acid-Forming Effect

    Alcohol
    Soft drinks (pop)
    Tobacco
    Coffee
    White sugar
    Refined Salt
    Artificial sweeteners
    Antibiotics (and most drugs)
    White flour products (including pasta)
    Seafood
    White vinegar
    Barley
    Most boxed cereals
    Cheese
    Most beans
    Flesh meats
    Most types of bread

    Please note that these lists of acid and alkaline-forming foods are not comprehensive, nor are they meant to be.

    If you’re eating mainly grains, flour products, animal foods, and washing these foods down with coffee, soda, and milk, you will almost certainly improve your health by replacing some of your food and beverage choices with fresh vegetables and fruits.

    Thanks for your article. It was interesting.

    • says

      Oh dear,

      Molly, I think you’ve invited a sh^tstorm of technical data by James that will (in his mind) prove you wrong.

      I think you’ve expressed an important element in wellbeing — do your own research, and trust your intuition.

      E.g. for many decades we’ve been warned again, again and again about the dangers of saturated fats. Recent research by Cambridge University reveals no evidence linking consumption of saturated fats, with heart disease. (there are some surgeons — e.g Dr. Dwight Lundell — who argues vegetable oils and similar unsaturated fats actually cause heart disease).

      Whoops.

      So much for all that technical detail about how low-fat is best for you. These days you can barely buy a full-fat yogurt in supermarkets.

      Prudent advice: take note of, and do as those who’ve succeeded against all odds, as exampled by Dr Turner.

      • Paleo Huntress says

        Steaphen,

        I intend to link this page in a comment in every online conversation that I encounter that promotes you, your website or your book, including Amazon.

        Before anyone makes a decision to spend money on a doctrine, they should see how that doctrine’s guru behaves. People should see the lack of self-control, self-awareness and follow-through of that guru, as well as his ego and refusal to leave a forum in peace even after he’s agreed to.

        I do hope your words here reflect your doctrine as you state it and are something you will be proud to have people read.

        ~Huntress

        • James says

          Poor Steaphen is simply attacking the messenger as usual since he is clueless to the topic and thus is unable to attack the message.

          One point he does bring up is:

          “E.g. for many decades we’ve been warned again, again and again about the dangers of saturated fats. Recent research by Cambridge University reveals no evidence linking consumption of saturated fats, with heart disease. (there are some surgeons — e.g Dr. Dwight Lundell — who argues vegetable oils and similar unsaturated fats actually cause heart disease).”

          Yes, there is a debate here because many scientists have this assumption of presence of must mean cause of. Saturated fats do not cause heart disease. Heart disease is the result of arterial inflammation, which has various causes. For example, elevated homocysteine, insulin damage, smoking, high blood pressure, xanthine oxidase from dairy, etc. Presence of saturated fats in cases of arterial plaque formation does not mean cause.

          The only reason I bring this up is the same exact faulty reasoning has been applied to promote the so-called “alkaline diet”. People are assuming the presence of alkaline minerals in certain foods must make the blood alkaline. And they are assuming that despite ALL foods eventually metabolizing in to acids that only some foods will make the body acidic. Then they assume that these acids will lead to disease. And they assume that the so-called “alkaline foods” will neutralize these acids keeping the body healthy even though diet has little effect on raising pH. And they assume that bones are a primary buffering system for blood acidity, which again is not true. So they have all these assumptions all based on the presence of alkaline ash content of foods, which have virtually no influence on blood pH.

          Also like how Steaphen’s Dr. Turner who assumes that just because people can think about diseases that their thoughts are the primary means of both disease formation and cure. Although he has yet to produce even one of the over 3500 published medical articles on this process he claims exist for review. Either they don’t exist or he does not believe in them enough to post them as actual evidence to his claims.

          • says

            Hi James

            re your ” Although he has yet to produce even one of the over 3500 published medical articles on this process he claims exist for review. ”

            I think there’s been a misunderstanding that needs clarification.

            I originally copied and pasted a comment by Dr Lissa Rankin regarding Dr Kelly Turner’s research (claiming the 3,500+ case studies).

            I’m not privy to those links, so it would be irresponsible to post any links that weren’t directly cited by either Dr’s Turner or Rankin.

            In any case, a cursory search on the net revealed (for me) plenty of links. I posted some online here http://beliefdoctor.com/news/radical-remissions-from-cancer-9-key-factors#resistance

            But again, I’ve not yet seen any links to her case studies, so as a matter of professional courtesy and clarity, I most certainly won’t be posting any links here, nor allude to any that might have been used in her research, unless specifically cited by her.

            That said, in reading her book, I have, shall we say, a wonderfully exuberant confidence in her findings — that diet, pills and potions … and expensive medical treatments is not a singular primary factor in 3,500+ cases of radical remissions.

            :)

            btw, a small criticism of her findings — I think she should have include supplements with diet, leaving only 8 key factors — but who knows, maybe the figure 9 is better for marketing or some such.

            • James says

              Steaphen,

              You posted a quote as “evidence” to back your claim. In that quote it clearly states:

              “3500 case studies published in the medical literature about people who experienced spontaneous remissions from seemingly “incurable diseases.””

              IF these case studies really exist and IF they were really published in medical journals this would make them PUBLIC RECORD. Therefore, the claim you are “not privy to those links” is a bogus excuse. And the more you ignore me on proving any of these studies exist and back your claims the more it appears all you have been claiming is fraudulent.

              • says

                “the claim you are “not privy to those links” is a bogus excuse.”

                ?

                First of all I’m unfamiliar with the technical term “bogus”. Secondly, I’ve not yet cited those links, so won’t claim to know them. Earlier I provided links to some 100+ cases, that are easily verified in the public domain. Not sure what your issue is. They’re readily available.

                Thirdly, could I please caution you … if I was the publisher of Dr Turner’s book, I might take exception to your posts here, and since Murdoch has more money than you, I and half of America, I’d be a bit more restrained in going overboard on that bogus claim. You’d be easy pickings, from what I understand of libel laws and related matters.

          • says

            Dr Kelly Turner wrote:

            “I am overjoyed to announce that my book Radical Remission: Surviving Cancer Against All Odds made the New York Times Bestseller List for the April 6th edition!

            . . .

            Many of you have asked how you can continue to help spread the word. The best ways would be simply to keep letting people know about the book, and writing an Amazon review if you feel so inclined.

            Many thanks again, and I’m excited to see where it goes from here!

            Sincerely,
            Kelly

            Amazon: http://amzn.com/0062268759
            Facebook: Dr. Kelly Turner
            Twitter/Instagram: @drkellyturner
            Web: http://www.drkellyturner.com

            Dear Dr Turner, I’m happy to help spread the word about your good work! :)

            • James says

              And why are you posting that here when it has NOTHING to do with the topic?

              I would not buy her book in the first place simply because those over 3500 published studies don’t appear to exist in the first place.

              And it really irks me that you just simply WILL NOT stop posting off topic here. If you want to discuss Turner’s hypotheses take it to some on topic blog. Despite being asked how many times to do this you have taken every opportunity you can to plug her here even though her claims have NOTHING to do with the topic here. I am beginning to wonder if you are her publisher or what other connection you have to her since you are insistent in forcing her work down our throats. Again, I and other people here did not come to this blog to listen to her off topic pseudoscience!!! Take it elsewhere Steaphen!

              • says

                “NOTHING” to do with people’s health and wellbeing, one of the reasons they look to an alkalizing diet in the first place?

                You’re welcome to your opinion :)

                • James says

                  Steaphen, I cannot believe you still do not comprehend such simple concepts such as what it “on topic”. I could stretch claims like you keep doing and claim war is on topic since this also affects people’s health. But the topic is not the mind-body connection, it is not turner and it is not me despite your constant trying to make these the topic. The topic is the alkaline myth. Even a 3rd grader could figure out such as simple concept.

                  By the way, you were right the first time, you had not cited the studies.

                  And you clearly understand law less than you do medicine or the difference between cited and sighted.

                  It’s obvious that you are going to remain oblivious to the facts presented so I am doen dealing with you. I would get further arguing with the wall that I get arguing with you. Clearly you will never get it.

            • says

              Hi James

              It seems you’re still unaware … as Dr Herbert Benson says quite definitively : Mind can change one’s biochemistry.

              So all your details, facts and opinions about biochemistry are riding on a flawed premise.

              That’s why I’ve posted material on Dr Turner’s book, to give a heads-up that all your comments are, while somewhat in the ballpark, are undermined by the players changing ballparks. So, in a sense all your comments are off-topic.

              Another pertinent point is that the low-fat issue was championed by people like you for decades, citing lots of technical data, just like you.

              Now you have some surgeons (one who’s done “over 5,000 open-heart surgeries”) saying all those years, “we” were wrong. All that technical information, wrong.

              Whoops.

              My advice, as before, read Dr Turner’s book, and Norman Cousins book “Anatomy of an Illness” and conclude what Cousins did … “Drugs are not always necessary. Belief in recovery always is”

              I’d rather follow those who have proven results, than the advice of technicians whose data is often contradicted, and subsequently shown to be disadvantageous to health.

        • finndian says

          If that isn’t the pot calling the kettle black. Every forum you frequent you are seen as nothing more than a trouble maker. You go to forums to ‘correct’ people instead of trying to help. You disrupt… you do not help. You are a troll and apparently proud of it.

          • Paleo Huntress says

            No Wormtongue, it isn’t. I’ve never claimed to be trying to “help people”, that is Steaphen’s schtick. I come for the discussion and the debate. I have nothing to gain by people believing my goal is to “help them”, and nothing to lose when my actions don’t back a book that I didn’t write or a website that I don’t host. >.<

            You still don't know what a troll is, and you obviously don't know how to the use the 'pot calling the kettle black' analogy properly– but having my own personal internet stalker is kinda fun.

            Put your forked tongue back behind your teeth.

      • says

        @Finndian (in response to your post March 28, 2014 at 7:35 pm)

        I think a couple of points might provide some perspective:

        When Paleo Huntress expresses vitriol and name-calling, while using a fake name (alias) on this website, she’s telegraphing some aspects of character that is evident to many.

        Specifically, when meeting with and communicating with people in public (e.g. at work) she will (in kind, with her posts here being behind a mask) use a “mask” and hide her true feelings. My guess is her work requires her to be nice, happy and sweet when serving clients, all the while being unable (due to work commitments, or just shy) to speak her mind — e.g. as a waitress or sales person.

        I’ve seen research which confirms the increased incidence of ill-health for those who must always be ‘up’ –smiling, pleasant — while feeling frustrated, angry and stressed over their inability to express what they genuinely feel. Knowing that about her enables one to empathize and understand the vitriol in forums like this one. That’s not meant to be condescending, just what is.

        The second point is that even if she were to sufficiently slander anyone, it is a fairly straight forward matter to commence legal proceedings, and subpoena Chris Kresser, and/or his ISP (and additional ISPs as needed), get her real name, then she’s in court, pronto. But that path (even using legal help at mate’s rates) is expensive, and time-consuming. Besides, those reading this blog will appreciate her character and the context and cause of her vitriol, name-calling etc, and ignore.

        At the end of the day, so to speak, we’re all in this together, so it behooves each of us to make the world a little better for one and all.

        • Paleo Huntress says

          vit·ri·ol
          ˈvitrēəl,-ˌôl
          noun
          1. cruel and bitter criticism.

          Do you really feel you’ve been cruelly and bitterly criticized, Steaphen?

          You’ve been asked repeatedly to stay on the topic of pH and you’ve said you were leaving this forum several times, and yet, you refuse to honor the forum request and you cannot even honor your own word and follow through. When that is brought to your attention, you attempt to excuse your behavior with sexist jokes and pretend to be unable to distinguish between topics of general health and this one about pH myths. Given that, do you truly feel that my criticism of you is cruel and/or bitter? Truly?

          Regarding slander, I don’t need to slander you, you do a great job of making YOURSELF look bad. I’m not trying to sell anyone a book on how thinking positively will heal them, it is YOU doing that. There are no laws preventing anyone from directing people on the internet to public examples of your character. YOU wrote the words, not me. YOU provide examples of behavior that conflicts with your doctrine, not me.

          Funny thing though, I did a google search to see where most people were talking about you, and as it turns out, the only person talking about you on the internet is YOU. lol It seems I didn’t give people enough credit for recognizing and avoiding charlatans.

          • finndian says

            Who are you and your alter ego James to come and try to police the forum? Where you get off telling someone to stay on topic? Neither of you are moderators and you are an obnoxious troll. As everyone tells you in every forum you disrupt… go away! You add nothing to the discussion.

            • Paleo Huntress says

              -Holds up the mirror for Finny-

              For Paleo folks, there was an article published at Paleo Leap just over a month ago.

              Acid/Alkaline Balance and Paleo: Myth or Truth?

              “The major health benefit of a low-acid load diet probably has more to do with cutting out processed foods and eating plenty of nutrient-dense vegetables than anything else. Fruits and vegetables do contain some nutrients that increase absorption of calcium (like magnesium, for example), so these foods probably are good for bone health, and every other kind of health as well. But it’s not because they’re re-balancing the body’s acid levels, it’s because they’re supplying essential aids to calcium absorption from green vegetables and other plant sources of calcium.”

    • James says

      Molly: “When people encourage you to “alkalize your blood,” most of them mean that you should eat plenty of foods that have an alkaline-forming effect on your system. The reason for making this suggestion is that the vast majority of highly processed foods – like white flour products and white sugar – have an acid-forming effect on your system”

      As has been pointed out numerous times foods DO NOT really have an alkalizing or acidifying effect on the body. ALL foods are made acidic in the stomach, alkalized in the intestine and then eventually metabolized in to acids., most of which are essential to the body.

      Molly: “if you spend years eating a poor diet that is mainly acid-forming, you will overwork some of the buffering systems mentioned above to a point where you could create undesirable changes in your health.”

      The body’s primary means of pH regulation is respiration. We have to breathe throughout life and so we never overwork our respiratory buffering system. Dumping of hydrogen ions through the kidneys is the body’s secondary means of pH regulation. And again, the kidneys are designed to do this job throughout our life. We do not use up any kidney buffers. And the body has yet more buffering systems it uses long before bones would be used for buffering. This is why acidosis is EXTREMELY rare to begin with and buffering by bones is even more rare than the already extremely rare acidosis.

      In fact, if you are in medicine then you should be aware of what is the main reason for bone demineralization (osteomalacia, osteopenia) really is. It is excess phosphorus, the same phosphorus that is in the calcium phosphate you mention. High phosphorus levels create a calcium-phosphorus ratio imbalance triggering pseudohyperparathyroidism (PHPT). PHPT leads to a release of parathyroid hormone (PTH), which leads to a release of calcium from bones. This has NOTHING to do with acidosis. The other primary cause of mineral loss from bone are benign pituitary tumors that are believed to result from a lack of active vitamin D3. The benign tumors stimulate PTH release again resulting in bone mineral loss despite the extremely rare acidosis not being present.

      People need to stop repeating this acidosis being a common cause of bone mineral loss myth.

      Same with the acidosis causing disease myth. Are you aware of the dangers alkalizing presents? For example, most pathogens thrive in an alkaline environment. Candida for example morphs in to its pathogenic fungal form and its growth gene is turned on in an alkaline environment. Our flora acids control Candida by keeping it in a benign yeast form and turning off the Candida growth gene. And studies have shown that over-alkalinity of healthy cells morphs these cells in to cancer cells, which require a highly alkaline internal pH to survive and thrive.

      Molly: “For example, your phosphate buffer system uses different phosphate ions in your body to neutralize strong acids and bases. About 85% of the phosphate ions that are used in your phosphate buffer system comes from calcium phosphate salts, which are structural components of your bones and teeth. If your body fluids are regularly exposed to large quantities of acid-forming foods and liquids, your body will draw upon its calcium phosphate reserves to supply your phosphate buffer system to neutralize the acid-forming effects of your diet. Over time, this may lead to structural weakness in your bones and teeth.”

      You are correct that the phosphate buffering system relies on two ions. When the blood builds up too many hydrogen ions the blood starts to become acidic. In response hydrogen phosphate, NOT calcium phosphate, takes up a hydrogen ion to form the other ion dihydrogen phosphate. When the blood loses too many hydrogen ions the blood becomes dangerously alkaline so the dihydrogen phosphate now releases the hydrogen ions it picked up back in to the blood to bring the pH back down.

      By the way, phosphate is considered insignificant as a blood pH buffer due to the extremely low concentrations in the blood. Therefore, the whole phosphate buffer debate is really irrelevant anyway.

      Molly: “If your body fluids are regularly exposed to large quantities of acid-forming foods and liquids, your body will draw upon its calcium phosphate reserves to supply your phosphate buffer system to neutralize the acid-forming effects of your diet. Over time, this may lead to structural weakness in your bones and teeth.”

      Not true as explained above.

      Molly: “This is just one example of how your buffering systems can be overtaxed to a point where you experience negative health consequences.”

      Again, phosphate buffering IS NOT a significant source of pH buffering for the blood due to the very low concentrations of phosphate buffers. Respiration and hydrogen dumping or retention are the primary means of pH balance in the blood.

      Molly: “Generally speaking, most vegetables and fruits have an alkaline-forming effect on your body fluids.

      Most grains, animal foods, and highly processed foods have an acid-forming effect on your body fluids.”

      Again, these myths have been addressed a number of times. There is NO such thing as a truly acid forming or truly alkaline forming food. ALL foods are made acidic in the stomach, alkaline in the intestines (the “alkaline response”) then eventually metabolized in to acids most of which are essential to the body.

      In addition, fruits and vegetables in particular are loaded with various dietary acids as I pointed out in an earlier post:

      “Steaphen, you missed the malic acid, tartaric acid, oxalic acid, amino amino acids and fatty acids in lemon.

      Fruits and vegetables, including many considered alkaline can also contain various acids including chlorogenic acid, tartaric acid, tannic acid, quinic acid, aketoglutaric acid,
      oxalacetic acid, pyruvic acid, fumaric acid, lactic acid, succinic acid, acetic acid, caffeic acid, p-coumaric acid, formic acid, isocitric acid, lactoisocitric acid, shikimic acid, malonic acid, t-aconitic acid, quinic acid, glyceric acid, citramalic acid, glycolic acid, lipoic acid, succinic acid, glucuronic acid, galacturonic acid, benzoic acid, phosphoric acid, hydrochloric acid, sulphuric acid, fumaric acid,
      pyrrolidinonecarboxylic acid, neochlorogenic acid, sinapic acid, salicylic acid, gentistic acid, acidic vitamins such as folic acid and pantothenic acid, etc.

      There is a partial list of the acids found in fruits and vegetables.

      As for the second part of my statement about ALL foods metabolizing in to acids this is basic human chemistry as well. For example, all the sugars and some other compounds are metabolized leading to the formation of carbonic acid. Fats and oils in plants and meats are metabolized in to fatty acids. Proteins in to amino acids. Amino acids can metabolize in to uric acid. Fibers in plants are fermented by the flora in to acetic, lactic and other fatty acids as well as acidic B vitamins. I could go a lot deeper in to all the various other acids needed by the body and generated by the body through the metabolizing and metabolic products of foods. ”

      Molly: “ideally, you want to eat more alkaline-forming foods than acid-forming foods”

      Again, there is no such thing as an alkaline forming food. ALL foods, including the so-called “alkaline foods” will metabolize in to acids. And most of these foods again contain acids to begin with.

      If you really want to see how ludicrous the acid-alkaline food hypothesis is consider this. Lemons are loaded with citric acid, malic acid, malic acid, tartaric acid, oxalic acid, amino amino acids and fatty acids. Lemons also contain a race of nitric acid, but not acetic acid as Steaphen incorrectly claimed earlier. Yet lemons are considered alkaline. Now compare this to beef, which is considered acidic despite having a lower acid content and being loaded with alkaline minerals such as sodium, potassium, calcium and magnesium.

      Then vinegar is considered acid forming even though it is a weaker acid than the citric acid in lemons.

      The alkaline supporters will incorrectly claim that the lemon juice becomes alkaline in the body. It is not really becoming alkaline, the acid is being neutralized by the body’s buffering system. The same exact thing happens to ALL ingested foods including steak, candy bars, pie, etc. The digestion process requires stomach acid. Therefore, all food is made acidic in the stomach as part of the digestive process. Food is partially digested by enzymes in the stomach to form chyme. As the acidic chyme is released in to the intestines the acid has to neutralized to protect the intestines. Therefore, the pancreas releases sodium bicarbonate to neutralize the acids in the chyme. This process is commonly referred to as the “alkaline response”, which again occurs with ALL foods. Digestion is then completed in the intestines by alkaline enzymes.

      Molly: “The following lists indicate which common foods have an alkaline-forming effect on your body fluids, and which ones result in acid ash formation when they are digested and assimilated into your system.”

      If you read different lists you will find that they tend to contradict each other. The reason is that these lists are bogus. As pointed out numerous times there is no such thing as a truly acid forming or truly alkaline forming food. ALL foods stimulate the same alkaline response. Most foods also contain amino acids that are metabolized first in to amino acids. Amino acids are eventually broken down in to highly alkaline and highly toxic ammonia. To protect the body the body reacts the highly alkaline ammonia with carbonic acid, neutralizing the carbonic acid and forming uric acid in the process. Uric acid is one of the body’s primary antioxidants. Excess uric acid is normally hydrolyzed and excreted in urine and feces. Fats and oils in foods are first broken down in to fatty acids and eventually metabolized to form carbonic acid. Sugars in foods, including those found in fruits, vegetables and meats are all metabolized eventually in to carbonic acid. Fructose from fruits also elevates uric acid levels. The fibers in the so-called “alkaline foods” will be fermented by the intestinal flora to form lactic acid, acetic acid and other fatty acids. Lactose from milk will also ferment in to lactic acid. Bottom line is that ALL foods, including the so-called “alkaline foods”, will eventually metabolize in to acids in the long run. Even so, since they can also form alkaline intermediates such as the highly toxic ammonia, these foods are not considered truly acid, nor truly alkaline forming.

      The main influence diet has on blood pH is simply the formation of carbonic acid, which has several essential functions to the body. But the body readily eliminates any excess the body cannot utilize without taxing any buffering systems for the body.

      The whole alkalizing food myth is based on isolating the alkaline ash from foods while totally ignoring the naturally occurring acids present in foods and the acids they metabolize in to. If they reversed this and only isolated all the naturally occurring acids in the so-called “alkaline foods” and ignored the alkaline ash present then all these so-called “alkaline foods” would suddenly be considered “acid forming foods”.

      This does not even take any scientific reasoning, just some simple common sense to understand the whole alkaline diet thing is a myth.

  65. Michele Duncan says

    Why do Eskimos have such high rates of hip fractures osteoporosis? Eskimos eat lots of animal protein and calcium?

    • Paleo Huntress says

      I’m not sure they eat “lots” of calcium… though even if they did, calcium intake isn’t the determining factor in osteoporosis. But they do suffer from very high rates of chronic Vitamin D deficiency due to a lack of UV exposure. As such, they also have one of the highest suicide rates in the world, as well as one of the highest rates of alcoholism and depression.

    • James says

      Osteoporosis is not the result of low calcium. Osteoporosis is the result of a loss of collagen matrix. The two primary deficiencies that lead to a loss of collagen matrix, and thus osteoporosis, are silica (orthosilicic acid) and vitamin C (ascorbic acid). The best natural sources for these are plants, not whale or seal that make up a large part of their diets.

      Bone density can also be decreased by excess vitamin A, which they probably get way more than they need in their diets.

  66. James says

    Steaphen: “Hi James

    James: “while totally ignoring things such as the naturally occurring acid content of the foods or the acids they metabolize in to.”

    ?

    I think most who (for example) eat alkaline-foods (e.g. lemons) are aware of the acid (acetic and ascorbic) in the fruit.”

    Steaphen, you missed the malic acid, tartaric acid, oxalic acid, amino amino acids and fatty acids in lemon.

    Fruits and vegetables, including many considered alkaline can also contain various acids including chlorogenic acid, tartaric acid, tannic acid, quinic acid, aketoglutaric acid,
    oxalacetic acid, pyruvic acid, fumaric acid, lactic acid, succinic acid, acetic acid, caffeic acid, p-coumaric acid, formic acid, isocitric acid, lactoisocitric acid, shikimic acid, malonic acid, t-aconitic acid, quinic acid, glyceric acid, citramalic acid, glycolic acid, lipoic acid, succinic acid, glucuronic acid, galacturonic acid, benzoic acid, phosphoric acid, hydrochloric acid, sulphuric acid, fumaric acid,
    pyrrolidinonecarboxylic acid, neochlorogenic acid, sinapic acid, salicylic acid, gentistic acid, acidic vitamins such as folic acid and pantothenic acid, etc.

    There is a partial list of the acids found in fruits and vegetables.

    As for the second part of my statement about ALL foods metabolizing in to acids this is basic human chemistry as well. For example, all the sugars and some other compounds are metabolized leading to the formation of carbonic acid. Fats and oils in plants and meats are metabolized in to fatty acids. Proteins in to amino acids. Amino acids can metabolize in to uric acid. Fibers in plants are fermented by the flora in to acetic, lactic and other fatty acids as well as acidic B vitamins. I could go a lot deeper in to all the various other acids needed by the body and generated by the body through the metabolizing and metabolic products of foods. But my point has already been more than made.

    As for the rest of your comments I will ignore them since once again you are trying hard to post off topic, including making this about me since you cannot argue the topic of the blog as usual.

  67. James says

    Hi Rhonda,

    I would actually like to address this.

    First of all the body has numerous buffering systems since it needs to maintain its tight pH. Respiration is the body’s primary means of pH regulation though. If the blood starts to become too acidic respiration increases to reduce carbonic acid levels. If the blood starts to become too alkaline then respiration slows down to build up carbonic acid. The kidneys are the body’s second in line for pH regulation.

    The other thing we have to keep in mind is that there is no such thing as a truly acid or truly alkaline food. Here is a post I just did on another site in regards to the acid-alkaline food myth:

    “There is no basis for this, which again is why so many acid and alkaline food lists contradict each other.

    This myth is based on measuring ONLY the ash content of the food while totally ignoring things such as the naturally occurring acid content of the foods or the acids they metabolize in to.

    If they only measured the acid content of the so-called “alkaline foods” then many of those so-called “alkaline foods” would then have to be re-listed as acid foods. This is another reason this “alkaline food” lists are bogus.

    Also consider this fact. Beef is listed as acidic even though beef is loaded with alkaline calcium, magnesium sodium and potassium. More than most of the plants considered alkalizing.”

    James

    • says

      Hi James

      James: “while totally ignoring things such as the naturally occurring acid content of the foods or the acids they metabolize in to.”

      ?

      I think most who (for example) eat alkaline-foods (e.g. lemons) are aware of the acid (acetic and ascorbic) in the fruit.

      Earlier you wrote “If people were reading this blog article it was because they were interested in what was being said about the alkaline myth”.

      I don’t presume to speak for others, but I believe many people reading this blog would have the primary focus on health, and topics such as acid-alkaline are part of that focus.

      I suggest to those reading this who are ill or interested in long-term health, to ask some questions.

      We know (from the above comments by James) that he does not believe we can be well, naturally (e.g. he states that mind is only a factor in psychosomatic illness, not “serious ones” caused by pathogens. Research by Dr Turner, Dr Herbert Benson (Harvard) and others says otherwise).

      I think James’ focus is to undermine people’s confidence in the alkaline-diet. That then would soften them to being receptive to the need for expensive pharmaceutical medications.

      I recommend to those who are unwell, to ask: “What do those who recover from serious illness do (especially those who have terminal illness for which conventional treatments have proved ineffective?)”

      Keep a journal, note what improves, what worsens your condition.

      Be very suspicious of those who profit from you remaining on medications.

      Trust your intuition (one of the 9 key factors utilized by cancer survivors).

      One of the habits of highly successful people (Stephen Covey) is to start with the end in mind. Start with the end in mind of being free of medications. That possibility is available to all.

      At first you would be wise to merely start weaning yourself off medications, not drastically cutting those medications. Note that those who are most vehemently opposed to your goal (of medication-free wellness) will likely be those who have the most to (financially) lose. Watch for their name-calling, abuse, derision and anger as an indicator of either their financial income being at stake if you regain wellness naturally, or their belief that you must remain a victim to your disease.

      Stay focused. Research what has worked for others (e.g. alkaline-diet, meditation, letting go anger etc, as per Dr Turner’s list).

      Finally, ask “what do I want? Do I want to remain on expensive medications?” No? then research, meditate, research, radically change your diet, trust your intuition, go your own way, take control of your health, let go anger, improve your social support network — in other words, do what thousands of others have done to regain wellness against all odds.

      If I am wrong in my advice, no problem — ignore it, go your own way, find what works. Enjoy.

  68. Rhonda says

    Hi Chris,
    Your views about the bones not being responsible for balancing our PH but instead it’s our kidneys that balance out acid were very interesting and made a lot of sense.
    But in that case, couldn’t it then put the kidneys at risk by putting too much strain on the kidneys if we consume a diet too high in acid foods?
    Thank you,
    Rhonda

  69. Dennis says

    James,
    I think you should stop complaining about people being off topic. Every time, [15 – 20?], you asked Steaphen for published studies, you went off topic, therefore inviting more off topic comments.

    All you had to do is ignore Steaphen’s and my comments from the beginning, but you could not do that. So you invite him over and over to come back with his off topic published studies.

    Can you see this picture?

    I read through many of the published cases and they are impressive, but don’t need those to know what the mind can do to systematically heal the body [along with diet etc], or hurt the body. I’ve got 43 years experience with this.

    Of course, I strongly suspect, that nearly everyone reading this blog knows full well how rigidly, locked in you are to your limited understanding of the body.

    So since it appeared that Steaphen was not going to post the links, I went ahead and did in hopes to finally shut you up concerning the published cases you keep asking for.

    Then again, why should you read them when you WILL reject in any way possible anything that challenges your limited understanding.

    Now, having said all of those facts.

    James and Paleo. I agree that it was inappropriate for Steaphen and I to comment off topic as much as we did.

    I’m sure both of you will admit though, there will be some natural deviation from the topic as I believe there was before we commented, but we did take it too far.

    As soon as I saw the mind mentioned in relation to the body, I jumped on it with the intention of helping people but not sensitive to the scope on the blog.

    It is very true, if there was a “thread” in a forum with the subject of, say, “influence of the mind on healing”, and somebody comes along and asks about the PH of the gut after eating whatever, then the forum modulator would probably instruct that person to start a new thread of that subject.

    So, ignoring the off topic comments maybe the best way to handle it. At least I’d stay away.

    • James says

      Dennis: “James,
      I think you should stop complaining about people being off topic. Every time, [15 – 20?], you asked Steaphen for published studies, you went off topic, therefore inviting more off topic comments.

      All you had to do is ignore Steaphen’s and my comments from the beginning, but you could not do that. So you invite him over and over to come back with his off topic published studies.

      Can you see this picture?”

      Clearly you don’t. You and Steaphen were asked a number of times to stop posting of topic. But instead the tow of you were acting like atheists barging in to a church and trying to force your convictions on everyone. People don’t go to church to hear atheists ramble on about their convictions. And people were not reading this blog article because they wanted to hear your and Steaphen’s off topic rantings about YOUR beliefs. If people were reading this blog article it was because they were interested in what was being said about the alkaline myth, not hypotheses on the mind-body connection and spontaneous remissions. Now you want to make me the bad guy instead of taking responsibility for your own actions. Typical troll.

  70. James says

    Dennis: “I wish you would have answered my other questions, also.”

    If you get back ON TOPIC then I would happy to answer your questions on topic with the blog article. You and Steaphen though don’t seem to have enough brains between the two of you to figure out that your posts ARE NOT on topic, even when several people have told you this over and over. If you noticed I have been ignoring most of your and Steaphen’s posts because as the saying goes “don’t feed the trolls”. By responding to your off topic posts it just encourages you and Steaphen to post even more off topic. It’s like a sick game the two of you wish to keep playing.

    Dennis: “OK, so, personally, I don’t think Steaphen should have or needed to look up any published medical articles for you.”

    It is up to the original claimant to back their claims with the evidence. If these studies really exist AND if they really back Steaphen’s claims then he should have posted the evidence. The fact that he refused to post the evidence but rather spend so much time arguing against everyone but you just makes it appear all that more that the studies either do not exist or are flawed.

    I see you claim they exist but I have seen all sorts of people post titles to articles they claim back their points. When you read the studies though they either have nothing to do with the topic or they are heavily flawed or misinterpreted.

    This is why I repeatedly asked for these studies to be presented for review. Did you read and review all those 3500+ references or did you just see some references posted and assumed they must back Young’s belief? Being that you said you looked at the site and saw the references but said nothing about actually reading them it appears to to be the later.

    So since you and Steaphen don’t want to back your claims with real evidence and it is off topic why don’t the two of you go somewhere else where your beliefs are the topic since this is not the topic here.

  71. Dennis says

    James
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Dennis: “Do you TRULY believe that Dr Turner simply made up all of her references to spontaneous remission?”

    James: I have no idea. That is why I keep waiting for Steaphen to supply at least 20 of those over 3500 published medical articles he claims exists for review. The fact that he has yet to supply even at least one is pretty suspicious.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    I wish you would have answered my other questions, also.

    OK, so, personally, I don’t think Steaphen should have or needed to look up any published medical articles for you. For one reason, because I don’t believe you have any flexibility to adjust your thinking on that matter anyway. I could be wrong.

    I just checked out his site and the links to published articles that you’ve been begging for, are there.

    I don’t know why he didn’t simply put the link here, but it could be, like I believe, he didn’t want to simply bow to your demand. I don’t know. I’m just guessing.

    http://beliefdoctor.com/news/9-key-factors-affecting-radical-remission-from-cancer#remissions

    • says

      Sorry Dennis, I think you, James and his affiliate have misunderstood me – I really don’t care if James accepts the research that Dr Turner has presented.

      As far as I’m concerned, from a holodynamic-systems perspective, all healing is in a sense “spontaneous remission”. Btw Dr Turner does not use the term “spontaneous” as it implies healing occurs without our deliberate intent. Not so, she says, as her research makes abundantly clear..

      The research is, for me, irrelevant. But not everyone has spent decades developing a world-view that provides a fuller view with which to the appreciate the cultural and scientific dogmas at work.

      My posting here is to give those who are experiencing severe illness, a fuller understanding of the dynamics of recovery. The naysayers are irrelevant, or at least they need to be considered irrelevant when seeking recovery from illness. It’s crucial to recovery for people to take control of their lives, their beliefs, diet, and their relationships that are undermining their beliefs, and expectations of recovery.

      I think Stuart Chase was close to the mark when he said that “For those who believe, no proof is necessary, for those who don’t believe, no proof is possible”. I understand the deeper rhythms and processes of life and do not require proof, having now moved beyond the need to look for supporting evidence of that understanding. That said, I’m still delighted when my understanding throws up some surprises, as I make mention here http://beliefinstitute.com/blog/steaphen-pirie/quantum-physics-sex

      Mind you I do get quite vocal about the superstitions and egregious behavior of mechanical-universe thinkers. I share Prof. Richard Conn Henry’s lament that to not speak up about those old-world mechanical beliefs, is a dereliction of social duty. As he says “As a person of iron integrity, I cannot participate in the dereliction of social duty that is going on among scientists today. I must speak up, and, by gum, I am!” (http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/quantum.enigma.html)

      In my work I go into detail about the irrational superstitions that are endemic in modern medicine and science. It really is a travesty of modern science to steadfastly maintain old, irrational superstitions that are causing immense harm in our world. http://beliefdoctor.com/the-travesty-of-modern-science.html

      • says

        Astute readers will be alert to the underlying reason why James seeks to discredit the research — because biochemical processes won’t explain “spontaneous remissions”.

        Just as a biochemical analysis won’t explain how we move our bodies to even so much as lift a finger.

        If anyone wants the unquestionably robust argument as to why that is the case, and will continue to remain the case, read the content of the following link. http://beliefdoctor.com/the-modern-superstitions-of-science-and-religion.html

        • James says

          I already gave several explanations behind spontaneous remissions. So why are you lying again Steaphen? Just looking for another excuse to push your bogus site?

          Steaphen: “Just as a biochemical analysis won’t explain how we move our bodies to even so much as lift a finger.”

          You clearly know nothing about how the body really works if you don’t think science know how muscles work.

          • says

            “You clearly know nothing about how the body really works if you don’t think science know how muscles work.”

            Perhaps true, I know very little — so I ask questions.

            For example: A runner begins running.

            He moves off the start line, and moves forward 1/1,000,000th of the Planck length (note: infinite-series, used to mathematically “solve” Zeno’s Paradoxes requires movement through all increments, including infinitely shorter than the Planck Length).

            Precisely, exactly what biochemical/electrical processes are responsible for that movement?

            If you would be so kind to enlighten the physics community, they’ll reward you with a Nobel or two.

        • says

          James

          When you lift a finger, initially moving it a small distance, say 1/1,000,000th of the Planck length, exactly what biochemical process does that?

          Please be aware, casual observers of your reply will notice the tell-tale signs of your “cognitive dissonance” in the form of denial, or imprecise generalizations that do not answer the question, or comments about being “off-topic”.

          Earlier I suggested you’d receive a Nobel or two if you answer that question. Besides physics you would be a certainty for a Nobel in Chemistry and Medicine, as a precise answer would undermine much of modern scientific and medical dogma.

          • says

            James

            To appease those who believe my comments (and those of Dennis) are off-topic, why don’t you provide a link to a forum at which we can drill down into the biochemistry, say of muscle movement, thinking, memory, feelings, imagination, creativity, hope, desire, love.

  72. James says

    StenBjorsell: “I am quickly losing faith in James.”

    No problem. As I have to keep reminding certain individuals here that this blog article IS NOT about me. If you disagree with something then respond about the comment, not the person, and back your claims with some evidence. Not that hard to do!!!

    StenBjorsell: “What is this: “They totally ignore certain simple facts such as much of the acidity would be lost as the carbonic acid releases and the carbon dioxide gets burped up.””

    Again, not that hard to figure out. If carbonic acid levels is subject to the amount of carbon dioxide present then the loss of some of CO2 that dissociates from the soda and is burped up means less CO2 to form carbonic acid, thus less acidity. Get it now?

    StenBjorsell: “Is this referring to some well known facts, personal experience facts or study facts? Reply please !”

    Mostly what is well known in science and medicine. Have you tried researching these facts from some anatomy and physiology books or some valid medical research?

    StenBjorsell: “Fact is that bulk CO2 in our bodies is produced through combustion or metabolism. ”

    Nobody has denied that fact. Also, if you paid attention to what I said several times ALL foods gets metabolized in to acids. The primary acid I was referring to is carbonic acid.

    StenBjorsell: “The combustion process generates CO2, that is acidic by default”

    So where is the hydrogen atom in CO2 to make the CO2 acidic? Ah, it does not exist. The CO2 has to react with water for a hydrogen source to create the acid carbonic acid. And the higher the CO2 levels dissolved in the water the higher the acidity, which goes back to my first comment about burping up so much of the CO2 would reduce the acid activity the soda would have on the body.

    By the way, the body also maintains a levels of dissolved CO2 in the body since it is required by the body. Dissolved CO2 levels are in equilibrium with lung CO2 levels, which is hundreds of times higher that carbonic acid levels. Levels of carbonic acid can be maintained based on need by increasing or decreasing respiration, which decreases or increases dissolved CO2 respectively.

    Some of the dissolved CO2 can be utilized to form carbonic acid as needed catalyzed by the enzyme carbonic anhydrase.

    StenBjorsell: “But no neutralisation takes place, only removal of the acidic combustion product, CO2 takes place,”

    Wrong again. First of all what acid is required to form the body’s bicarbonate? That’s right, carbonic acid, which quickly disassociates in to bicarbonate. And bicarbonate is maintained in a higher level than carbonic acid in the blood. Carbonic acid also reacts with highly alkaline and highly toxic ammonia NEUTRALIZING the carbonic acid in the process and forming one of the body’s primary antioxidants uric acid.

    During the disassociation of carbonic acid in to bicarbonate there is an acidic hydrogen proton also released. This proton is BUFFERED by binding to hemoglobin or phosphate.

    Further buffering in the blood occurs with extracellular proteins such as albumin.

    As I mentioned earlier, the body produces carbonic acid utilizing the catalyst carbonic anhydrase. So why would the body produce carbonic acid if it is so bad for the body as you are implying? Simple, because we need carbonic acid. Carbonic acid is needed to neutralize highly toxic ammonium, it is needed for the production of stomach acid, it is needed to release oxygen from hemoglobin, it is needed to dilate blood vessels to allow proper circulation and it is needed for the formation of bicarbonate in the body.

    StenBjorsell: “When the blood reaches the lungs the CO2 is released and the pH rises and oxygen can attach again. This is pure transportation of CO2 out of the body, not neutralization.”

    Very good, but there are reactions in which there is neutralization of the carbonic acid in the blood such as the reaction of carbonic acid on ammonia to form uric acid.

    And this backs my earlier statement about excess alkalinity preventing the release of oxygen from hemoglobin. Again, a slight acidity is required for the oxygen release.

    StenBjorsell: “In the kidneys pH is dropped by means of proton pump that split a neutral salt in acid that is excreted and base that is retained, I understand.”

    The pH of urine is dropped as many acids are excreted in the urine such as uric acid, dihydrogen phosphate ion, ammonium ions, citric acid and sulfuric acid.

    StenBjorsell: “To claim that acidic foods or free acid can be ventilated by itself or via CO2 integrated in this process seems an unsupported hypothesis to me at least.”

    And nobody ever claimed that. Especially the “acidic foods” part since as has been pointed out numerous times there is no such thing as a truly acidic food. Or a truly alkaline food for that matter. ALL foods are made acidic in the stomach, alkaline in the intestines, and eventually all metabolized in to acids in the long run with highly dangerous alkaline ammonia being an intermediate to the acid formation in some cases.

    StenBjorsell: “As soon as CO2 is created acidity takes place.

    Again, not true as explained earlier in this post.

    StenBjorsell: “What are the suggested reactions, please!”

    Already explained earlier in this post.

    StenBjorsell: “The reference I gave was not to a “study”. It was to a review of a number of studies on subject matter. Please read it and the studies. You and Chris seem to be out on some kind of metaphysical ride without slightest proof for “neutralization through breathing”.”

    Once again you are twisting things that were NEVER claimed to make your argument. Carbonic acid is reduced through respiration, not neutralized as you are implying was said. That is as ridiculous as claiming that if you add distilled water to an acid that the reduction of acidity is from neutralization of the acid. You need to learn the difference between reduction of acidity as opposed to neutralization of acidity. Although, as pointed out some of the carbonic acid is neutralized contrary to your claim. But not by respiration.

    StenBjorsell: “Finally the study I referred to was trashing meat protein, which I think is right, when too high. Equally bad and acidifying are grain based products”

    Once again, there is NO such thing as a truly acidic food. Just because a food such as meat or grains are high protein this DOES NOT make them acidic.

    In fact, let’s take a look at beef. How do you explain beef being acidic considering the very high levels of calcium, magnesium and potassium in the beef? For example, do you know what causes rigor mortis when an animal dies? It is from the calcium influx in to the muscles and the pushing out of magnesium from the muscle cells. That calcium and magnesium does not magically disappear when the animal is killed. They are still there and calcium, magnesium and potassium are all considered alkaline. So again, how do you explain beef being considered acidic?

    StenBjorsell: “The worst of the worst is a standard US diet, normal in meat and high in grains, especially when sugar is added.

    And sugar is naturally found in all plants considered “alkaline”. Since simpler plant sugars are metabolized in to carbon dioxide just like sucrose (“table sugar”), why is it you think added sugar is acidic while simpler plant sugars found in the so-called “alkaline foods” are not? Also keep in mind that the more complex sugars known as fibers are fermented by the flora forming even more acids. So why is a plant such as kale, which is also loaded with oxalic acid, considered alkaline, while Twinkies containing “alkaline” minerals from sources such as whey and baking soda is considered acidic?

    StenBjorsell: “The table in the review of the acidifing levels of foods makes sense.”

    How?

    StenBjorsell: “Regardng calcium it may also be well worth noting that only calcium from bone is in non-ionic form and can hence neutralize acid. Cacium citrate, and chloride etc. have no neutralizing effect as . they are already neutralized.
    The same applies to phosphorus and other minerals.”

    Good try, but you are overlooking something. Ever hear of ions, such as calcium ions or magnesium ions? What about the electromotive series of metals? Point is that you are assuming that the minerals will remain the same. If this is the case then how does the sodium from sodium chloride form sodium bicarbonate? How does the chlorine atom from sodium chloride form in to hydrochloric acid?

    You also overlooked the fact I mentioned in my earlier post to you that the foods they incorrectly called “acidic” were high in phosphorus, which promotes bone loss and urinary calcium excretion due to hyperparathyroidism. This has nothing to do with a supposed pH shift from foods.

    StenBjorsell: “Chris and you claim neutralization of acids through the lungs.”

    Again, that is not what was said. You are twisting what was said in to things that were never said.

    StenBjorsell: “Any acids, so lets start with lactic acid. How ??”

    First of all what lactic acid? Better do your homework before answering this one!!!

  73. StenBjorsell says

    I am quickly losing faith in James. What is this: “They totally ignore certain simple facts such as much of the acidity would be lost as the carbonic acid releases and the carbon dioxide gets burped up.”

    Is this referring to some well known facts, personal experience facts or study facts? Reply please !

    Fact is that bulk CO2 in our bodies is produced through combustion or metabolism. The combustion process generates CO2, that is acidic by default and status quo is maintained as long as it is constantly released as it is being produced, else we die and before our pH drops significantly
    But no neutralisation takes place, only removal of the acidic combustion product, CO2 takes place,
    A transient acidic state takes place when CO2 is dissolved in the blood lowering pH to near 7, which then causes the oxygen to detach hereby enabling O2 transport to tissues.
    When the blood reaches the lungs the CO2 is released and the pH rises and oxygen can attach again. This is pure transportation of CO2 out of the body, not neutralization.
    In the kidneys pH is dropped by means of proton pump that split a neutral salt in acid that is excreted and base that is retained, I understand. Same mechanism that is used to produce stomach acid. That is totally different to ventilation away of CO2, To claim that acidic foods or free acid can be ventilated by itself or via CO2 integrated in this process seems an unsupported hypothesis to me at least. As soon as
    CO2 is created acidity takes place. What are the suggested reactions, please!

    The reference I gave was not to a “study”. It was to a review of a number of studies on subject matter. Please read it and the studies. You and Chris seem to be out on some kind of metaphysical ride without slightest proof for “neutralization through breathing”.

    Finally the study I referred to was trashing meat protein, which I think is right, when too high. Equally bad and acidifying are grain based products, especially if they are high or dominate a diet with close to and over 50% intake like the USDA promotes. The worst of the worst is a standard US diet, normal in meat and high in grains, especially when sugar is added. SAD.
    The table in the review of the acidifing levels of foods makes sense.
    Regardng calcium it may also be well worth noting that only calcium from bone is in non-ionic form and can hence neutralize acid. Cacium citrate, and chloride etc. have no neutralizing effect as . they are already neutralized.
    The same applies to phosphorus and other minerals.

    But before we look at the kidneys lets complete the discussion of the lungs; focus at an issue at a time. Maybe I am missing something, and then I would like to know!
    Chris and you claim neutralization of acids through the lungs.
    Any acids, so lets start with lactic acid. How ??

  74. StenBjorsell says

    Citation from a JNL discussion with a totally opposite view:
    http://nutrition.highwire.org/content/128/6/1051.full

    The study authors are comfortable with that not only diet but also intake of buffers effects calcium = bone loss, based on several studies referred to. The last words of the summary:

    “In summary, a diet high in acid-ash protein causes excessive urinary calcium loss because of its acid content; calciuria is directly related to urinary net acid excretion. Alkali buffers, whether chemical salts or dietary fruits and vegetables, reverse this urinary calcium loss.

    Overall, the evidence leaves little doubt that excess acidity will create a reduction in total bone substance. This is normal physiology—not pathology. This is a mechanism of Homo sapiens to protect himself against acidosis. The ability to buffer the acidosis of starvation or a high meat diet gave a survival advantage in a hunter-gatherer society. Modern peoples are now eating high protein, acid-ash diets and losing their bones. The study by Appel et al. (1997) shows that increasing buffering capacity by increasing fruit and vegetable intake is a practical way to counteract the acidity generated by the dietary protein, reduce calciuria and consequently improve calcium balance.”

    That we can regulate acid balance through breathing as Chris states above makes no sense: By removing CO2 via the lungs we indeed remove acid. But bulk CO2 comes from metabolism, and we can only remove CO2 in proportion to that metabolism. Moreover it is just during metabolism that CO2 is formed and hence the point when this acidity is created, then quickly dispersed through ventilation.
    The body can of course become more acidic from retaining part of that CO2. It cannot become more alkaline by giving up more CO2 as there is no other bulk body source for it.

    The small buffer of CO2 in the blood we have is necessary for proper oxygen delivery through the Bohr effect. As soon as that buffer is gone a condition called pulmonary alkalosis is entered. A condition that happens at the same time as metabolic acidosis. That is the exact result of attempting to rid the body of acid through breathing. (Over breathing = hyperventilation) It usually ends in death if subjects are allowed to breath faster and faster due to failing oxygen delivery.
    If there however is ample bone substance and working kidneys, calcium can then instead react with excess acid and bind it as Calciumchloride and water, into the urine.

    • says

      Hi StenBjorsell

      Thank you for posting this link — the website is an excellent resource on nutrition (I’ll include in my workbook for the nutritional component of those 9 factors I mentioned above).

      Again, thank you!

      btw, in the current issue: “Dietary Intakes of Individual Flavanols and Flavonols Are Inversely Associated with Incident Type 2 Diabetes in European Populations.” ( http://bit.ly/1g9vRHM )

      Rule of Thumb (from the above): majority alkaline-producing diet -> low incidence of Type 2 Diabetes; decreased loss of bone density. :)

    • James says

      Not the first time I have seen this flawed study used to try and promote the acid diet myth,

      The first and most obvious flaw is that they never tested blood pH. Instead they relied on urinary pH, which DOES NOT reflect blood pH. Therefore, they cannot definitively state that there ever was acidosis.

      Another major and obvious flaw is look what they are are claiming are acidic foods. These are both HIGH calcium containing foods. High serum calcium can cause problems such as high blood pressure, increased risk of asthma attacks, constipation, muscle cramping/spasms and mental fogginess. Due to the dangers of high serum calcium the body is obviously going to try and dump the excess calcium from the food through the urine. In this case the calcium IS NOT coming from the bones as is being claimed. Since they failed to identify the source of the calcium it is pretty premature of the “researchers” to claim the calcium is the result of bone loss.

      And if the “researchers” knew anything about nutrition and how the body works then they would have known that the foods they list as “acidic” can cause bone loss, but this has NOTHING to do with acidity. These are high phosphorus foods that trigger bone loss by inducing pseudohyperparathyroidism.

      Just like their bogus claims about soda and acidity. They totally ignore certain simple facts such as much of the acidity would be lost as the carbonic acid releases and the carbon dioxide gets burped up. And the fact that there could be acid buffers in the diet, and even if not the acid would be neutralized as part of the chyme by pancreatic bicarbonate.

      In addition, they focus heavily on kidney excretion of hydrogen ions while hardly mentioning the more important pH regulator respiration. Respiration is the body’s primary means of pH regulation. Kidneys are secondary. And there are still other pH regulators such as binding of hydrogen ions to proteins or by the reaction of ammonia from amino acids and carbonic acid leading to the formation of uric acid required by the body. These two reactions require the proteins the researchers are calling acidic. And then there is buffering by hemoglobin and phosphates. Again the “researchers” claim the phosphates are acidic, which is misleading.

      They also overlooked the well known fact that the primary blood pH buffer is bicarbonate, which is is maintained at a much higher levels in the blood than carbonic acid. And what is the bicarbonate made from? Carbonic acid, which lowers the level of carbonic acid during its production.

      It is well known that buffering by bone minerals is ONLY used as a last resort, which means it wold take severe acidosis to cause bone loss from any acidity associated with diet.

      The “researchers” have also failed to take in to account the fact that ALL foods eventually metabolize in to acids. Even the so-called “alkaline foods”.

      In addition, the “researchers” failed to take in to account that just like the body has to maintain a tight regulation on pH, it also maintains tight regulation on its potassium levels since excess serum potassium can stop the heart. This is why potassium is used to stop the heart in lethal injection.

      Potassium is a natural diuretic, and it is known that diuresis leads to potassium loss. This is part of the body’s means to regulate its potassium levels. And by the same token this means the higher potassium levels would not remain long to buffer any acidity. This is why the body relies primarily on respiration and dumping of hydrogen ions through the kidneys as their primary means of pH regulation.

      Even if the potassium can remain there is another flaw with their claims. Potassium is an alkali, just as sodium is an alkali. Yet they claim that salt as sodium chloride causes bone loss as where potassium salts supposedly prevent bone loss. Again, they do not understand what they are talking about. The acidosis from ingesting “table salt” is the result of the chlorine atom in the salt resulting in hyperchloremic acidosis. Therefore, the same problem could just as easily occur from the ingestion of excess potassium chloride.

      There are other errors, but these are the primary ones.

      It is like these “researchers” went in to the research with a pre-concieved idea and blinders on so they were going to back their erroneous beliefs by manipulating the research and through misinterpretation.

      This is a great example though of why people need to understand how the body really works, and why research articles like this need to be reviewed rather than blindly accepted.

      Same reason I have repeatedly asked Steaphen for at least 20 examples of the over 3500 research articles he claims backs his beliefs for review. So far he has yet to even provide even one, which calls in to question if these studies even really exist, and if they do exist if they really back Steaphen’s views. For some reason he has been trying really hard to dodge my requests and not provide any of these thousands of studies that are supposed to exist.

  75. says

    Summarizing Dr Turner’s research:

    7 out of 9 factors in recovering from cancer, “against all odds” are psycho-social.

    Only 2 of those 9 essential factors are dietary / biochemical.

    In other words, 77% of your healing regimen will (according to the research) necessarily involve working on and improving psycho-social conditions.

    Only 23% will involve diet etc, as typified by much of the discussion on this page.

    When facing serious illness, I think it behoves those seeking wellness, to remember the relative weight of the various factors.

    By all means pay attention to diet, add some supplements as needed, but most of all work on those psycho-social factors that are contributing to your illness, and are preventing you from regaining wellness.

    As I reported (early in my comments on this page) diet and related physical factors are a minor issue (as documented by Sir Prof. Michael Marmot, Prof. Len Syme and others). To direct all your attention towards diet and supplements (and studying the detailed biochemistry thereof) is, according to the research, ignoring the other (7 of 9) factors that are crucial to your recovery, and wellness.

    • says

      Part of that focus on psycho-social should, I believe, focus on ‘letting go’ any hostility towards others. I.e. not blaming others for your situation.

      I believe it is pertinent for those who are ill, to read the comments directed towards me on this page. For example, the assertion that I am a “passive-aggressive guru”.. (according to an online definition, “Passive-aggressive behavior is the indirect expression of hostility”.).

      I don’t feel any hostility towards the people who have responded here. I may be stubborn (guilty :) by not accepting comments that denounce the efficacy and importance of pyscho-social factors in regaining wellness. But that doesn’t cause me (to be a victim) to feeling angry, or similar.

      I don’t believe I’ve labeled anyone here a charlatan, a fraud or any other such terms, as that would reflect my stuff, my issues, my anger. And if I have, I’m not perfect and occasionally I may slip, fall and curse, so please forgive me if I do :)

      I find that when you meet resistance, e.g. as typified on this page, my advice is simply stay focused on what you want (wellness), and allow the naysayers, and argumentative types, their opinions.

      If you’re confident within yourself you’ll not be upset by contrary opinions, or those who disagree with you.

      I find a response similar to “thank you, you’re welcome to your opinion” highly beneficial in reminding you to let go their ‘stuff’ and for you to redirect your focus back to your wellness. In my experience, your recovery will involve developing that sense of focus, confidence and ease …

      Blessings to all including those who’ve labeled me all sorts of bad things.

      Peace.

      • Paleo Huntress says

        What exactly do YOU want, Steaphen?

        Are you THAT GUY who has to steal everyone’s thunder? Do you pout and stomp at other people’s birthday parties? Do you want to be rude to the host of this blog? Do you want to invalidate the people commenting in the thread? Do you want to force others to acknowledge you even without their consent? Do you want to force your doctrine down their throats even after you’ve been asked politely to leave? Do you want to ruin any semblance of an on-topic conversation by refusing to respect it?

        Don’t you have a forum of your own, Steaphen? Can you not invite your ONE agreeing disciple there and leave this conversation in peace?

        I didn’t label you Steaphen, you are who you are– another jerk on the internet force-feeding his doctrine where it (and he) is not wanted. If you don’t like the way we see you, then stop being that guy.

        I have no problem with contrary opinions, I have a problem with people inserting them where they aren’t asked for and aren’t welcome. It’s one thing to present a different idea and let people consider it– it’s another altogether to ram it down their throats. Considering your repeated scolding that “naysayers” are toxic, it is utterly bizarre that you would continue to tell those of us who believe nutrition is the primary constituent to health, that WE are wrong. Do you read what you write? Do you have any idea how incongruent your ideals are with your actions?

        Here in THIS forum, I want to discuss pH, and seeing as it’s the topic of this post, I’d say it’s a pretty reasonable expectation. You brought your strawberry to the table, I tried it and I opted to go back to my chocolate. Now please, try and muster up a modicum of respect and honor and take your naysaying and GO AWAY. You may very well have a decent message, but if so, it is lost in your disrespectful strong-arming.

        Without the ability to edit or delete your comments, your words will be here in this forum for others to refer to for a very long time. Is this conversation really the one you want people judging you and your ideology by?

      • Paleo Huntress says

        Also, please be sure to help them understand that it is only resistance to their choices for THEMSELVES that should be opposed. If you’re forcing something on someone against their will and without their consent, they have every RIGHT to resist it, and the forcer should EXPECT it. Teaching them to deal with that kind of resistance would be like teaching a rapist do deal with his victim’s resistance.

        The real message here is that your journey is your own. You have no right to force your beliefs on others, nor do you have the right to insist that they buy into your recovery methodology.

    • says

      I will admit that I have indeed been quite rude in “hijacking” this topic, away from the specifics of alkaline-acid diets and similar matters.

      I have done so because, if I may use an analogy, to continue the various arguments here specific to the biochemistry of alkaline-acid diets while ignoring the underlying impetus towards regaining health, is akin to “shifting deck-chairs on the Titanic”.

      Having now highlighted the psycho-social “icebergs” in one’s path, I invite those interested to resume discussion of (to continue the analogy): where and why which deck-chairs are to be placed, and the relative merit thereof.

      For those who are interested in discussing further the psycho-social factors vital to wellbeing, I’ve posted a news item about Dr Turner’s book, to which one can comment ( http://beliefdoctor.com/news/9-key-factors-affecting-radical-remission-from-cancer ).

      I thank everyone who’s responded to my posts — it has been helpful to me … I’m presently writing a health and wellbeing workbook for some people, and as a result of these (and other) responses and experiences, I will be including mention of the style of responses one might encounter on the path to health and wellbeing.

  76. Dennis says

    Everything in the physical or esoteric world has a hidden or esoteric counterpart. I mean EVERYTHING.

    You cannot learn the true nature of a thing, like disease, by only studying it on the limited, physical level.

    This is what James is attempting to do by rigidly staying within the scope of his medical journals.

    In terms of disease, to truly understand it, you have to include the esoteric or metaphysical aspect of disease.

    This is what Dr. Kelly Turner has done or is at least starting to do, by not simply acknowledging the many published cases of radical remission, but digging deeper, beyond the physical to understand why this happens. Of course, the answer will be “metaphysical”. Beyond the physical. The mind.

    Here is a VERY practical example of how helpful it can be by including the “hidden” counterpart of the physical, when studying the body and it’s health or lack of.

    Every organ of the body emits a particular color which can be seen by anyone with refined or psychic vision. When that organ is healthy, the color is clear and vibrant.

    {here is the helpful part]

    The color an organ emits will be faded and cloudy BEFORE a disease manifests in that organ on the physical level.

    Eventually, this kind of “healthcare” will be commonplace, I suspect, in the near future.

  77. says

    For those in trouble, cancer, disease, however, Dr Turner includes mention of the need to deal with resistance (e.g. the kind that James/Huntress is providing in this thread.)

    From the book (citing the case of a woman who had stage 4 cervical cancer in 1985)

    “When I was in the hospital, the doctors and nurses spent two hours a day for two months trying to convince me that I was going to die, that there was no hope, that I had to accept this.

    I told them I did not accept it. I understood what they were saying. I understood their statistics. I understood the prognosis. However, I was determined to stay focused on the possibility that my health was assured, that I would be cured. . . . And I do believe my level of control positively affected my healing.”

    • says

      I think anyone who’s ill, will appreciate Dr Turner’s approach (in contrast to the denials and refutations of James/Huntress).

      As she writes:

      “when I came across a case of what I call Radical Remission. I froze, confused and stunned. Had this actually happened?

      Did this person really overcome advanced cancer without
      using conventional medicine? If so, why had it not been on
      the front page of every newspaper? Even if it had happened only once, it was still an incredible event. After all, this person had somehow stumbled onto a cure for his cancer.

      The men and women I was counseling would have given anything to know this survivor’s secret—and so would I.”

      Hence her book.

      I suggest those who are ill, to read this book, and ignore those like James who openly deny or refute people’s ability to naturally heal themselves.

      • Dennis says

        I guess it goes without saying, but, I second that.

        Think of it this way.

        What have you got to lose by being open minded to what others have studied or experienced?

        • James says

          Dennis: “What have you got to lose by being open minded to what others have studied or experienced?”

          Some people have such open minds that their brains have spilled out!!!

      • James says

        Steaphen: “I suggest those who are ill, to read this book, and ignore those like James who openly deny or refute people’s ability to naturally heal themselves.”

        At no time have I ever refuted people’s ability to naturally heal themselves. In fact, if you read my responses you will find just the opposite.

        So I take it you are just making up this lie to divert attention away from the fact that you have yet been able to provide even ONE of the over 3500 published medical studies you claim exist.

        • says

          To those who are ill I advise you to be alert to the “cleverness” of people who seek to undermine your natural healing regimen.

          In the above comments James asserts only psychosomatic illness (a minor percentage of relatively non-threatening illnesses) can be healed with mind (and related pyscho-social factors).

          I’m sure those who are experiencing stage 4 cancers don’t sit around wondering if it is psychosomatic, or not. They take control, and using the 9 factors (as reported by Dr Turner), begin their journey to regaining wellness.

          The book’s examples of people who’ve survived against all odds, makes it very clear: Ignore the naysayers, and do what it takes. That often involves radical changes to one’s diet, beliefs, behaviors and relationships.

          Whether or not a true portrayal of the facts, the 1988 film “Leap of Faith” with Anne Archer and Sam Niell (based on the true story of Debby Ogg’s experience of overcoming nodular lymphoma) includes a very moving scene revealing the determination needed. While at dinner attended by various family and relatives, in response to seemingly innocent teasing about her eating “rabbit food” – she having radically changed her diet after being diagnosed with cancer – Archer/Ogg tells the person to leave immediately, and not come back, ever. It’s been around 20 years since I’ve seen that film, and I may have misremembered the exact details, but the message was clear: Do what it takes to create a positive and supportive environment, social circle and belief-system. If some within your family/social environment persist with being snide, sarcastic or skeptical, exclude them entirely from your life. Your recovery/life more than likely depends on it.

          • says

            Hi to all, especially those who are unwell.

            In this comments section (“The Acid-Alkaline Myth: Part 1”) I’ve been labeled a fraud, a charlatan, stupid, selling snake oil, rude, and many other things.

            I may indeed be all those things — rude, a fraud, a snake oil salesman, receiving payment for selling my services (sort of begs the question, who doesn’t? But I digress :).

            The question is, does this particular flawed, rude messenger – by some accounts, a bad … a very bad person – have a message worth considering?

            Has the messenger provided any useful ideas?

            If not, well then of course you’re wise to ignore his message and go about your day, barely giving the message a second-thought. The messenger might be harder to ignore, being as he is ever so rude, stupid and vocal.

            In my experience the exchanges on this page are somewhat representative of what you will likely experience if you “rock the boat” by not obediently accepting and doing what you are told. I encourage those being diagnosed with a severe or terminal illness, to find within and around you the resources and, if necessary, the the temerity, the arrogance, the confidence, the rudeness – to forge your own path to wellness.

            • finndian says

              If you get sick and your illness has anything to do with nutritional deficiency whether genetic or dietary then you are screwed. The current medical establishment was not required to take nutritional training in med school! 12 hours of training at best. California is the only state that requires new doctors get a certain amount of nutritional training but that was mandated just 3 years ago.

              Most doctors are trained to drug away any uncomfortable symptoms that be a direct result of a nutritional deficiency and you just can’t live in a deficit like that forever. When you get into that situation and the drugs start to mount it is time to take your health into your own hands and seek the proper help with trained individuals.

              You’ll always notice when you go back to that original doctor that loaded you up with drugs that he doesn’t want to know how you were able to reverse what was happening with you and how you were able to stop all those drugs. Its this status quo thing… the patients are the ignorant enemy and the drug company controls the doctors mind through drug company sponsored studies. Gone is any shred of intellectual curiosity he may have once had.

              Plus, I personally believe the doctor is thinking “Damn, there goes my Merck sponsored golf junket! That was my best customer!”. He certainly doesn’t want to hear you cured your RLS with inexpensive iron tablets.

        • Dennis says

          James.

          Do you TRULY believe that Dr Turner simply made up all of her references to spontaneous remission?

          What good would it do for Steaphen to take the time to look up any published cases of spontaneous remission?

          If he did, would you actually admit that your thinking was limited when it comes to healing and the mind?

          Maybe, for all of us, you could explain one more time, what is it concerning the mind and healing that you do refute? Seriously.

          • James says

            Dennis: “Do you TRULY believe that Dr Turner simply made up all of her references to spontaneous remission?”

            I have no idea. That is why I keep waiting for Steaphen to supply at least 20 of those over 3500 published medical articles he claims exists for review. The fact that he has yet to supply even at least one is pretty suspicious.

  78. Dennis says

    I never even implied “thinking away”, because “thinking away”, to me, is not even close to precise mental techniques one can use to heal.

    Sorry I didn’t get your joke, since it was mixed in a lot of displaced aggression.

    I’m sure by not you have revealed who you really are as a person to all of the readers, by in case anyone has missed that, here are the facts again.

    What an ignorant fool. You not only did not read what I said but you had to resort to behaving like an insecure child who has such low self esteem he has to resort to name calling to build himself up. Oh yes, and you made sure you corrected a misspelling and made fun of me for that. That must have made you feel really good.

    I said “It appears that the majority of the people reading this blog are believers in the alkaline type diet”

    Once again: IT APPEARS………

    Let me explain what I mean by this. I know it’s complicated.

    It means that is is my impression from reading all of the comments that the majority of people are believers in the alkaline type diet.
    It is pretty easy to tell based on their reactions to what you say.

    I want you to notice another thing. I referred to the “alkaline” diet as
    ….. “what is thought of as an alkaline diet”. The kind of diet that people often describe as alkaline.

    If you can read again, my comments, but this time with your hear OUTSIDE your ass, then you will see that I only talk about the diet that people CONSIDER alkaline. I personally don’t put much attention or alkalinity or acidity. I just know that the diet they eat is healthy.

    [people like Steaphen and Dennis prefer to remain in
    the dark ages believing that hardly anything has been learned about the human body.]

    This is ironic that you think that Steaphen and I are in the dark ages.
    I expect that you can talk to anyone on the leading edge of studying the mind-body connection and they will tell you of how little they know.
    There is so much more to learn. You read your scientific journals actually believing that what you read is all there is to know.

    You got to step back from your little details and get the big picture. It is ever expanding, while you are not.

    [ You cannot simply think away a pathogenic infection
    or disease caused by a pathogen such as most cancers.]

    I NEVER said or ever implied that one can just ”think away” disease.
    That was a question Steaphen asked me to clarify my comment that disease is caused by the mind, including cancer.

    You know, someone said “do not cast pearls before swine”.
    It is so obvious that you are the swine.

    In other words, it’s a waste of time trying to convince the lessor evolved and the ignorant. You will get it eventually.

    • James says

      Dennis: “I never even implied “thinking away”, because “thinking away”, to me, is not even close to precise mental techniques one can use to heal. ”

      Mental refers to thinking. So now you are saying that in the mind-body connection of healing that no thinking is involved. It just magically happens?

      Dennis: “I’m sure by not you have revealed who you really are as a person to all of the readers, by in case anyone has missed that, here are the facts again.”

      Your sentence, if that is what you call it, makes no sense whatsoever.

      Dennis: “What an ignorant fool. You not only did not read what I said but you had to resort to behaving like an insecure child who has such low self esteem he has to resort to name calling to build himself up……….”

      Wow, deju vu!!! Dennis is reposting his same temper tantrum rant word for word that he posted yesterday and that has already been addressed.

      I guess he has nothing new or important to add.

      • Dennis says

        I’m an efficient person. Why would I take the time to write the truth and who you are, in a different way?

        I’m sorry you were not able to comprehend my comment when I tried to explain that there is a difference between just “thinking away” as opposed to a precise mental technique. No one using the mind to heal would use the phrase “thinking away”.

        No temper here.

        I’m interested in trying to keep people from being hurt by your ignorance to holistic healing and the actual cause of disease.
        How does it feel advertising your extreme close-mindedness and ignorance to the world?

  79. says

    Yo, James and affiliates: in trusting that I’m within the limits of fair-use, I’ll quote Dr Turner’s definition of “Radical remission”

    “I define Radical Remission as any cancer remission that
    is statistically unexpected, and those statistics vary
    depending on the cancer type, stage, and medical treatment
    received. To be more specific, a Radical Remission
    occurs whenever:
    • a person’s cancer goes away without using any
    conventional medicine; or
    • a cancer patient tries conventional medicine, but the
    cancer does not go into remission, so he or she
    switches to alternative methods of healing, which do
    lead to a remission; or
    • a cancer patient uses conventional medicine and
    alternative healing methods at the same time in order
    to outlive a statistically dire prognosis (i.e., any
    cancer with a less than 25 percent chance of five-year
    survival).”

    • James says

      Steaphen,

      First of all a “remission” is not cured.

      Secondly, regardless of how Turner chooses to define “radical remission” this does not mean much of anything if those over 3500 studies published in medical journals you claim exist don’t. Therefore, there is really not much reason for you to continue with your line of reasoning until you provide those at least 20 studies you claim have been published in the medical journals for review. Otherwise it still appears that a lot of claims are being made up. So let’s see those studies Steaphen or are these studies as mythical as the unicorn?

      • says

        Hello James (and your alto-ego, Paleo Huntress — yes, it’s obvious it’s you under an alias)

        I’m reading case studies of people who literally were given months to live (e.g. severe kidney cancer, one kidney surgically removed), and 33 years (I’ll say that again, 33 years) later are entirely cancer-free.

        So I don’t know what your definition of “cured”‘ is, but I’ll take her’s. Thanks very much.

        • James says

          Steaphen: “Hello James (and your alto-ego, Paleo Huntress — yes, it’s obvious it’s you under an alias)”

          Boy, you cannot get anything right can you?!!!

          I AM NOT Paleo Huntress. First of all I am not female. Secondly, I don’t follow the ideas of the various thoughts behind what the paleo diet really was. So it appears you are getting more and more desperate, which is why you keep resorting to posting off topic attacks instead of trying to back your bogus claims.

          Steaphen: “I’m reading case studies of people who literally were given months to live (e.g. severe kidney cancer, one kidney surgically removed), and 33 years (I’ll say that again, 33 years) later are entirely cancer-free.”

          And you claimed these were published studies in medical journals. So why can’t you produce the at least 20 out over 3500 studies you claim exist? Do they really exist, or are these just more fabrications of your imagination?

        • Paleo Huntress says

          Steaphen,

          Here’s a little exercise for you– Go to a search engine and type in “livejournal paleo huntress”. What you’ll find is the very first account I ever created under the Paleo Huntress ID, and you’ll note that I created it in early 2007 and that it hasn’t been updated (meaning it hasn’t been changed) since late 2007. (I don’t use it anymore, but it has sentimental value.) You’ll also note my current icon (which I created myself for the livejournal account) and the image of me with my very long hair… and even if you squint REALLY hard, you won’t be able to confuse me with James. Now I suppose that one could posit that 7 years ago, James may have thought it possible that in 2014 he’d be having a debate with a character such as yourself and that his own credentials wouldn’t be enough to provide legitimacy, and so he attempted to shore up his future image by spending the time and energy creating a livejournal account in the fictional persona of an un-credentialed, married mom of 3, (one an Aspie) who was healed by a paleo diet– and then went on to moderate that community for 6 months, just in CASE someone like YOU showed up in 7 years. Beyond that, he continued to maintain this persona through countless posts in paleo and vegan nutrition communities everywhere.

          More to the point though, for someone extolling the healing virtues of positive thinking and avoiding the ‘toxic’, you are a fraud as its representative. Your posts are passive-aggressive, your continued off-topic presence here is disrespectful of the discussion topic and its author, and your personal attacks run contrary to your healing doctrine. Further, you preach about controlling mind and ego but you clearly lack the ability and willpower to do so yourself, and your responses toward me and others are both flippant and invalidating. You are a charlatan, everything you claim not to be– and someone who very obviously doesn’t practice what he preaches, but is dependent on people buying what he’s selling. Snake oil.

          Without a doubt, the “mix of commercial sales and business experience, interspersed with and accompanied by many and varied courses in sales and management training” that your site boasts is where you have focussed your energy. You have a long way to go with the healing spirit.

          You’re a fraud Steaphen. Please go away.

          PS. My grammar is MUCH better than James’.. (no offense intended, James.) >.<

          • says

            Dear Paleo Huntress

            You’re welcome to your opinions.

            If you believe my affirming people can heal naturally, using mind, meditation, and improved psycho-social circumstances is me being fraudulent, so be it.

            I note your quoting various elements of my biography that I’ve made available, while not offering anything about yourself. I’m happy to stand and affirm my beliefs. Publicly. Openly.

            As I said, you’re welcome to your opinions.

            Blessings on your journey.

            • Paleo Huntress says

              Steaphen,

              You seem to be suggesting that giving out your real name and biography shows people who you ‘really are’… but it doesn’t. It is conversations such as those in this thread that reveal the real you.

              As I wrote earlier, I DO believe in the ‘power of healing naturally and using mind, meditation, and improved psycho-social circumstances’… I even mentioned that I find the subject fascinating… but that isn’t where the fraud lies. The fraud lies in a critical, undisciplined, passive-aggressive guru trying to sell the masses what he preaches instead of what he practices. No one needs to read your bio to see that, Steaphen, they need only read this thread.

              I’m not trying to sell a book, so my name doesn’t matter. Information is information, the messenger is irrelevant. And while I support anyone ‘standing by and affirming their beliefs’, either your belief is a charade, or you are failing miserably at putting it into practice. Either way, you are a poor spokesperson for your own program.

      • says

        Quoting Dr Turner

        “Intrigued, I instantly began trying to find other cases of Radical Remission. What I found shocked me.

        There were over a thousand cases in print, all quietly published in medical journals, and yet here I was, working at a major cancer research institution, and this was the first time I had ever heard of one.

        The more I dug into this topic, the more frustrated I
        became. It turned out that no one was seriously
        investigating these cases, nor were they making any
        attempt to track them. What’s worse, most of the Radical Remission survivors I began talking to said that their doctors, while happy for them, often had no interest in hearing about what they had done to get better.”

        The astute reader will not your attempt at denying the evidence, given the efficacy of the factors she’s cited.

        • James says

          Once again Steaphen, just because someone writes something in a book this does not make it true. There was a quack who wrote a book claiming cancer is a survival mechanism. Does this make it true? Of course not!!!

          So where are those studies. I would think that if Turner wanted any credibility that she would have referenced those studies in her book making them even easier for you to find and present for review. Of course that can only happen if these studies actually exist as you keep claiming. If you cannot present at least 20 of these over 3500 studies you claim exist then your claims are going to appear as made up as your other disproven claims.

  80. says

    For those in poor or dire health: http://lissarankin.com/9-key-factors-affecting-radical-remission-from-cancer

    “Spontaneous Remission Project put together by the Institute of Noetic Sciences, which collected over 3500 case studies published in the medical literature about people who experienced spontaneous remissions from seemingly “incurable diseases.” Most of the case studies revolved around people with Stage 4 cancers who either declined conventional treatment or were given treatment deemed by doctors to be inadequate for cure. But the Spontaneous Remission Project also includes case studies of people who had remissions from heart failure, autoimmune diseases, high a gunshot wound to the head, and HIV.

    9 Key Factors

    So what were the 9 key factors that these patients with radical remissions employed? Dr. Turner goes into much more detail about these 9 key factors in the book. In fact, each factor has its own chapter, as well as stories of how patients used these factors to participate actively in their healing journey. But here are the nine overlapping factors her research uncovered.

    1. Radically changing your diet.

    2. Taking control of your health.

    3. Following your intuition.

    4. Using herbs and supplements.

    5. Releasing suppressed emotions.

    6. Increasing positive emotions.

    7. Embracing social support.

    8. Deepening your spiritual connection.

    9. Having strong reasons for living.”

    • Paleo Huntress says

      I cannot believe that you are still posting here. You have stated twice now that you were leaving the conversation and you have returned to it each time. Is the inability to follow through with one’s convictions a side-effect of your treatment?

      You got your free plug in, now you’re just being rude. Your comments are inappropriate and off topic.

    • James says

      Steaphen: ‘So what were the 9 key factors that these patients with radical remissions employed? ”

      Chemotherapy can cause a radical remission, which is not necessarily a cure. This is not the same as “spontaneous remissions”, which is what you originally brought up and was being discussed.

      • says

        Quote (verbatim): “3500 case studies published in the medical literature about people who experienced spontaneous remissions”

        The remainder of the above is also a verbatim quote of Dr Lissa Rankin’s article. Not my words. Research. Solid, evidence based. Fact. :)

        • James says

          Steaphen: “Quote (verbatim): “3500 case studies published in the medical literature about people who experienced spontaneous remissions”

          The remainder of the above is also a verbatim quote of Dr Lissa Rankin’s article. Not my words. Research. Solid, evidence based. Fact. ”

          If these really exist then it should be easy enough for you to post let’s say 20 of these cases here for review.

          After all anyone can make claims that something exists when they don’t. So let’s see some proof that any of these cases actually exist. If you cannot provide at least 20 out of over 3500 supposed cases then everyone will know that the whole thing is just most made up BS instead of the ” Research. Solid, evidence based. Fact. ” you claim.

          • says

            No thanks James.

            I don’t intend to infringe the copyright of the good work done by Dr. Kelly Turner.

            I have (today) purchased the Kindle version.

            You’re welcome to do so, and argue your case.

            For those who might be presently suffering cancer, from what I’ve read so far, detailing some very interesting cased, I highly recommend this book.

            “Radical Remission: Surviving Cancer Against All Odds”

            (Amazon http://www.amazon.com/Radical-Remission-Surviving-Cancer-Against/dp/0062268759/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1395200144&sr=8-1&keywords=radical+remission )

            • James says

              Steaphen: “No thanks James.

              I don’t intend to infringe the copyright of the good work done by Dr. Kelly Turner.”

              Let me repeat YOUR quote again:

              “3500 case studies published in the medical literature about people who experienced spontaneous remissions”

              If these were published in the medical literature then they should at least have abstracts on PubMed or somewhere on the internet where they can be linked. Supplying links to these supposed studies DOES NOT infringe on copyright. And if you read the copyright terms of PubMed you will find that many of the studies on their are public domain. Therefore, once again let’s see you supply at least 20 of these supposed over 3,500 studies you claim exist. If you only come back with more excuses then it is going to look even more like the studies never existed and you are just making up bogus claims.

              • says

                Okay, I get it. You’re saying Dr’s Turner and Rankin are quacks, frauds, charlatans …

                I’m enjoying reading the research she’s done.

                As I said, once you’ve been to all those countries (I wasn’t aware they were necessarily part of PubMed) I’ll pay attention.

                Chill. :)

                • James says

                  Steaphen: “Okay, I get it. You’re saying Dr’s Turner and Rankin are quacks, frauds, charlatans …”

                  Wow, the subconscious mind is such a wonderful thing. Look what your subconscious mind is coming up with about Turner and Rankin. Since nobody else has said anything about this it has to be your subconscious mind coming out with what you believe to be the truth.

                  I personally have not made any real opinion either way since I am still waiting for you to provide some of those 3500 medical journal published research articles you claim exist. So I guess you finally realized that they don’t really exist and thus your subconscious mind is telling you that Turner and Rankin are quacks.

                  The only way you are going to prove to your subconscious mind that they are not quacks is to actually search PubMed to see if any of this research was ever done in the first place. Then see if it was done without manipulation.

                  Don’t forget to share what you find here or everyone else will start thinking like your subconscious mind thinking that Turner and Rankin are as you put it “quacks, frauds, charlatans …”

              • says

                “Let me repeat YOUR quote again”

                ??

                For heavens sake … I quoted Dr Rankin.

                Jeez, please demonstrate you’ve got the intellectual horsepower to keep up. I mean, I can be Zen patient, but … well, really, there are limits.

                :)

              • Dan says

                Dear James, I find your comments very interesting. I’ve spent so much times taking alkalinizers and alka water prescribed by my doctor. Spending lots of money with very little improvements.

                Are you a doctor? I see you’re an herbalist but can’t understand if you are an MD. I’m curious. Thanks.

                • James says

                  Hi Dan,

                  No, I am not a doctor. I am allergic to doctors so it would be hard to work if allergic to myself ;-)

                  Actually I do avoid doctors at all costs since I will live longer that way. Last time I went to a doctor was 33 years ago. I took care of myself when I got bit by a brown recluse, when I got sideswiped by a van while on my bicycle, when I had a 107F fever from the measles and when I lacerated my liver falling on a narrow fence. So yes, I seriously do everything I can to avoid doctors.

                  I have worked in medicine for the last 35 years, starting out in allopathic medicine for 13 years. But I have seen how doctors practice medicine rather than perform medicine. So I decided to leave allopathic medicine for good and have been in holistic medicine ever since.

                  For example, I watched as an ER doctor tried to intubate a patient while the patient was awake, which is major no-no. The doctor apparently had never used a laryngoscope in his life because he had no clue how to use it properly. Long story short the doctor ended up slicing the patients throat open from the inside using the laryngoscope and they ended up suctioning a lot of blood out the patients throat.

                  In another case I had to explain to my friend’s primary doctor why she had a stroke from the medication she was on and why her blood pressure was going to around 300/200 the 60/40 a few minutes later then back up them back down…….. Her primary doctor nor her 4 other doctors could figure it out even though the answer was pretty simple.

                  Doctors killed my grandfather by giving him heparin therapy 3 times in 4 months, which induced a stroke from white thrombus syndrome. Heparin therapy is not supposed to be given more than once in a two year period or the body tries to attack the antigenic heparin derived from pig lungs forming white blood clots (white thrombus syndrome), which among other things causes strokes. But I don’t think most doctors have a clue what white thrombus syndrome is because they are taught how to treat symptoms with drugs, not what their side effects or interactions are.

                  Doctors also told my family that my grandmother had polycythemia vera, which the doctor claimed was an excess of white blood cells in his report. Polycythemia vera is considered a form of cancer involving red, not white, blood cells. And the diagnosis was not correct anyway. The doctor totally ignored things such as the high altitude she lived at and the dehydration, both of which will raise red blood cell counts.

                  My business partner’s father was killed from an overdose of iodine based Amiadarone after we spent 4 months getting him off the drug the first time due to the severe hypothyroidism induced by the drug, which was creating severe weakness among other things. So his cardiologist went against the primary doctor who prescribed the drug in the first place and said we needed him off the drug. The kicker is that he never needed the drug. He was already on other drugs to deal with the same issue.

                  I have had multiple friends told by doctors that they had cancer when no tests were performed or the biopsies came back negative.

                  I could go on and on with examples of the crap I have seen these quack medical doctors do.

                  Or simply doctor ignorance. For example, how many doctors know that high cholesterol DOES NOT cause heart disease or that low cholesterol significantly increases the risk of heart attacks and strokes? Or the fact that taking aspirin during a heart attack will make things worse as the studies have proven? Or that AIDS is not a disease and has multiple causes including the drug primarily given to HIV+ (which means nothing) patients? Or that “liver enzymes” are not specific to the liver? Or that there are numerous causes of hepatitis other than hepatitis viruses? Or the fact that there are no common lab tests that can confirm the presence of any particular virus including hepatitis and HIV tests? Or that even the manufacturers of the sleep aids Ambien and Lunesta have admitted their drugs don’t work? Or why thyroid tests frequently miss cases of hypothyroidism? Or why cholesterol lowering statin drugs can cause heart failure? Or why osteoporosis drugs increase the risk of bone fractures?……….

                  The ironic thing is that allopathic medicine has been mimicking holistic medicine for very long time despite calling holistic medicine quackery. For example most medications are made from herbs or are tweaked versions of herbs. Angiogenesis inhibition as a cancer treatment was being used in holistic medicine years before allopathic medicine caught on. Protease inhibitors were being used in the holistic medical field years before allopathic medicine caught on. The fact that Premarin could cause cancer was being reported in the holistic medical field for decades before the allopathic field finally admitted to this fact. We knew that nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) such as ibuprofen, Celebrex, Naproxen, etc. could cause heart attacks and strokes even with a single recommended dose for decades before allopathic medicine admitted to this fact. All they had to do was to use some common sense realizing that heart attacks and strokes could occur for the same reason NSAIDs can cause liver or kidney failure even with a single recommended dose.

                  Seriously, people can often live a lot longer simply by avoiding doctors and learning to properly take care of their health without pharmaceutical drugs.

                  James

        • says

          Hey James

          from the book Dr Turner

          “spent ten months tracking down and interviewing alternative cancer healers in the jungles, mountains, and cities of ten different countries, ncluding the United States (Hawaii), China, Japan, New Zealand, Thailand, India, England, Zambia, Zimbabwe, and Brazil.”

          Sorry, but unless you’ve done the same, and been to all those countries and jungles, everything you say must be BS, to use your logic :)

          Oh, and she spent 10 years researching for the book.

          But look, don’t take my word for it. Buy her book (I don’t have any vested interest in, or association with her).

          • James says

            Steaphen: “from the book Dr Turner

            “spent ten months tracking down and interviewing alternative cancer healers in the jungles, mountains, and cities of ten different countries, ncluding the United States (Hawaii), China, Japan, New Zealand, Thailand, India, England, Zambia, Zimbabwe, and Brazil.””

            Wow, you found this in a book. Well according to the books by Gene Roddenberry, Captain Kirk has been flying around various galaxies saving us from being taken over by the Klingons. So I guess you believe that as well since it is in a book.

            Still waiting for you to provide links to at least 20 of those supposed over 3500 studies you claim are published in medical journals. That would be a great start to giving some credibility to Dr. Turner’s book. If these supposed studies are just more bogus claims then Turner’s book has as much credibility as Roddenberry’s books. So if these studies exist present some for review. I did not ask for all 3500, just at least 20 to see if there is any credibility to your or Turner’s claims. Of course if they never existed in the first place I can see why you are having such as hard time presenting links to as little as 20 of these studies!!!

    • says

      Whoopsie daisy …

      Dr Rankin misquoted Dr Turner by numbering the list.

      Quoting from Dr Turner’s book,

      “These nine key factors for Radical Remission are:
      • Radically changing your diet
      • Taking control of your health
      • Following your intuition
      • Using herbs and supplements
      • Releasing suppressed emotions
      • Increasing positive emotions
      • Embracing social support
      • Deepening your spiritual connection
      • Having strong reasons for living

      It is important to note that these are not listed in any
      kind of ranking order. There is no clear “winner” among
      these factors. Rather, all nine were mentioned just as
      frequently in my interviews.”

      i.e. diet is NOT no.1. in importance.

  81. Dennis says

    James.

    It might be appropriate if I just follow Steaphen’s comments and simply apologize for all offensive comments, [which may be ALL of them]

    • says

      Hi Dennis

      Mate, no worries — to take offense is to blame someone else for how you feel.

      To paraphrase Eleanor Roosevelt, no one can make you feel _____________ (inferior, offended, bad etc), without your permission :)

  82. says

    Hi James (and Paleo Huntress)

    In my experience I’ve seen too much emphasis on the biochemistry associated with ill-health. I’ve participated in health forums in which various biochemical results are analysed and discussed in detail ad infinitum, and corresponding treatment regimens discussed.

    From my experience many people get confused and become dependent on the advice of their naturopath, or physician.

    I take a much simpler, and far more effective approach — I engage the future in which one is well. That trumps any and all arguments as to what is correct or isn’t, simply because in that future, one IS well.

    Working on an intuitive level, one will seek whatever facts about biochemistry are needed, but … and it’s a big but, the way forward has to remain fluid, open to possibility, intuitively driven. It has to remain open to the power of the heart, to love, live, and literally do the impossible.

    A focus on the technical detail is like watching and waiting for the proverbial kettle to boil. It’s not how things work. There’s a cyclic rhythm to reality, and health. When giving business presentations on creativity and natural healing methodologies, on how we have to learn to let go, and trust intuition, the women in the audience typically give me a “yeah yeah, tell us something we don’t know” look – and say as much to me personally after the presentation. The guys are typically clueless and shake their heads in disbelief.

    The technical detail is important, but no where near as important as people learning to engage their intuition and heart, and connect with a beneficial future in which they are well. As I said, that trumps any and all arguments because in that future, one IS well.

    You will note I’ve not argued against any of your statements concerning the technical merit of which chemicals do what and how. You’ve insisted I’m off topic, and yet, if health is the focus, you’ve been far and away more off topic than you realize.

    Denis has tried to give you a heads-up, but away you go again, quoting technical detail. In the wider context of life, the love, the stress, the emotional dimensions, via the interactions we have with friends, lovers, family, work colleagues etc, and our relationship with the future, the technical detail is **relatively** unimportant. We don’t live in a mechanical universe. It’s responsive to our deep felt fears, desires and expectations.

    As Denis pointed out, yes there are some misunderstandings of human biochemistry voiced by Chris Kresser – based on what we presently know – that warrant correction. But unless you couch your technical detail within a deeper, holistic framework, respondents like Mary and others won’t trust you. The more you quote technical details, the less they will trust you, because you’re demonstrating you’re not intuitively engaged to provide the best advice, irrespective of the volumes of technical detail at your disposal.

    I chimed in here, to this forum, because I see the enormously detrimental results that come from seeking to mechanise life, all the while avoiding the rich emotional, spiritual dimensions that are the powerhouse of life, love and wellbeing.

    I think that’s about all I wish to say on this topic, at least at chriskresser.com. Others reading this who appreciate what I’ve written, and who want encouragement or advice, are invited to contact me through the website, beliefinstitute.com

    • Paleo Huntress says

      Yes, you’ve successfully plugged your own website and promoted your own book. Good for you.

      Bye now.

  83. Dennis says

    Just a thought here.

    Maybe the reason why the “conversation” has naturally moved from the alkaline & acid subject is because the details of, what is acidic or alkaline in different parts of the body, do not matter very much. What matters is the diet of fresh fruits and vegetables is a healthy one. Nothing else matters.

    Notice I said “MAYBE”. I am not stating a fact.

  84. Dennis says

    I only claim to know what a healthy diet is. I don’t claim to be an expert on alkalinity and acidity.

    Here is comment by Brian that is worth copying.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Brian
    NOVEMBER 27, 2013 AT 12:12 PM
    You clearly only partially understand the way in which the body maintains it’s alkaline design. You are correct in saying that the blood pH is strictly regulated by the body it’s a life or death mechanism. Yes the Kidneys and other systems maintain this homeostasis when you consume acidic foods but you clearly lack understanding on how this wears down over time on the overall design and systems of the body. If you continue to eat acidic foods and drinks without a foundation of living alkaline forming ones, even though your body will compensate and blood will pull in bicarbonate, lungs will respire CO2, etc, over time this wears down on the entire biochemistry of the body. This is why eventually your bones will wear down. I have many testimonials of women who have reversed osteoporosis and osteopoenia following this lifestyle.
    What you are lacking understanding of is that the body is not a separate system but a connected system, it’s a holistic system. You should have a conversation with Robert Young on this he would run circles around you in a debate and has clear formulas to prove it. And years of research many people have healed cancer by supporting the alkaline design of their body instead of working against it. Over time acids are thrown into the lymphatic and other systems and fatty tissues around organs and this is what gives rise to Cancer. Yes the body must maintain it’s design but overtime if we don’t support it we will deteriorate.

    • James says

      Why is this post by Brian worth copying when it is not true?

      For example, he claims ” If you continue to eat acidic foods and drinks without a foundation of living alkaline forming ones, even though your body will compensate and blood will pull in bicarbonate, lungs will respire CO2, etc, over time this wears down on the entire biochemistry of the body. “. This simply is not true. The body maintains its pH throughout life regardless of what you eat. After all, EVERYTHING we consume, including the so-called “alkaline foods” will all metabolize in to acids in the long run. So the body is designed to deal with these acids from birth to death. And during that time the blood is maintained in a slightly alkaline state except in extremely rare circumstances.

      Next he claims: “This is why eventually your bones will wear down. I have many testimonials of women who have reversed osteoporosis and osteopoenia following this lifestyle.”

      First of all as pointed out acidosis is EXTREMELY rare, and bones are only used as a buffering source as a last resort. Therefore, buffering by the bones is significantly more rare that the already extremely rare acidosis because the body has so many other pH balancing systems that will be used before using the bones.

      In addition, osteoporosis IS NOT a loss of bone minerals and so has NOTHING to do with acidosis. Osteoporosis is the result of a loss of collagen matrix. And what is required for the production of the collagen matrix? Amino ACIDS, ascorbic ACID and orthosilicic ACID.

      Even the process of bone remodeling that keeps bones healthy requires citric acid produced by the osteoclasts.

      Next he claims “And years of research many people have healed cancer by supporting the alkaline design of their body instead of working against it.”. Once again, cancer cells have an internal pH more alkaline than healthy cells. You cannot cure cancer by alkalizing the blood. The alkalosis required would kill you much faster than the cancer.

      What people keep failing to realize with the so-called “alkaline diet” is that it is high in anti-cancer ACIDS!!! Malic acid, chlorogenic acid, tannic acid (polyphenol), etc. The diet also provides various other compounds including polysaccharides that stimulate the immune system and are metabolized in to beneficial acids. And the diet can provide other immune supporting compounds such as pantothenic acid, ascorbic acid, folic acid, selenium, etc. NONE of this has anything to do with alkalizing.

      Then he erroneously claims “Over time acids are thrown into the lymphatic and other systems and fatty tissues around organs and this is what gives rise to Cancer.”. This is complete BS!!! First of all the lymphatic system is maintained at a more alkaline level that the blood, which is already alkaline. And again, this has NOTHING to do with the formation of cancer. In fact, research has shown that when healthy cells become too alkaline they morph in to cancer cells. On the other hand if the internal pH of a cancer cells becomes acidic this kills the cancer cell.

      The primary cause of the vast majority of cancers are viral infections.

      • John Carraway says

        James – Brian’s post is right. Only the bloodstream is maintained at an alkaline pH. The rest of the body is a dumping ground for acids that haven’t been neutralized due to a diet deficient in minerals. All other explanations are bogus. There must be a source for alkaline minerals because they’re not recyclable. They are used up when acids are neutralized and excreted. Therefore the only source is the diet. You’re a victim of old school propaganda that relies on the pharmaceutical industry for answers that only mother nature can provide. However, I did like your analysis of horsetail silica, and thank you for recommending bamboo instead.

        • James says

          John Carraway: “James – Brian’s post is right. Only the bloodstream is maintained at an alkaline pH. The rest of the body is a dumping ground for acids that haven’t been neutralized due to a diet deficient in minerals.”

          This myth was already addressed in my post February 25, 2014 at 12:39 am.

          Acids in the body are dealt with in many ways. Again, respiration is the body’s primary means of pH regulation followed by the dumping or retention of hydrogen ions through the kidneys. There are even more means of pH buffering such as pH buffering by albumin, hemoglobin, bicarbonate, etc.

    • Paleo Huntress says

      Breathing wears on the biochemistry of the body?

      Right.

      So the answer is to eat an “alkalizing” diet so we can BREATHE LESS?

      Uh huh.

  85. Dennis says

    James.

    What an ignorant fool. You not only did not read what I said but you had to resort to behaving like an insecure child who has such low self esteem he has to resort to name
    calling to build himself up.

    Oh yes, and you made sure you corrected a misspelling and made fun of me for that. That must have made you feel really good.

    I said “It appears that the majority of the people reading this blog are believers in the alkaline type diet”

    Once again: IT APPEARS………

    Let me explain what I mean by this. I know it’s complicated.

    It means that is is my impression from reading all of the comments that the majority of people are believers in the alkaline type diet. It is pretty easy to tell based on their reactions to what you say.

    I want you to notice another thing. I referred to the “alkaline” diet as ….. “what is thought of as an alkaline diet”. The kind of diet that people often describe as alkaline.

    If you can read again, my comments, but this time with your hear OUTSIDE your ass, then you will see that I only talk about the diet that people CONSIDER alkaline. I personally don’t put much attention or alkalinity or acidity. I just know that the diet they eat is healthy.

    [people like Steaphen and Dennis prefer to remain in
    the dark ages believing that hardly anything has been learned about the human body.]

    This is ironic that you think that Steaphen and I are in the dark ages.

    I expect that you can talk to anyone on the leading edge of studying the mind-body connection and they will tell you of how little they know. There is so much more to learn. You read your scientific journals actually believing that what you read is all there is to know.

    You got to step back from your little details and get the big picture. It is ever expanding, while you are not.

    [ You cannot simply think away a pathogenic infection
    or disease caused by a pathogen such as most cancers.]

    I NEVER said or ever implied that one can just ”think away” disease.
    That was a question Steaphen asked me to clarify my comment that disease is caused by the mind, including cancer.

    You know, someone said “do not cast pearls before swine”.
    It is so obvious that you are the swine.

    In other words, it’s a waste of time trying to convince the lessor evolved and the ignorant. You will get it eventually.

    • James says

      Dennis: “What an ignorant fool. You not only did not read what I said but you had to resort to behaving like an insecure child who has such low self esteem he has to resort to name
      calling to build himself up.”

      Ironic coming from the man throwing a temper tantrum and calling me an ignorant fool.

      Dennis: “Oh yes, and you made sure you corrected a misspelling and made fun of me for that. That must have made you feel really good.”

      Sorry I hurt your feelings by joking around. I did not realize you were so sensitive. Have you had your testosterone levels checked lately?

      Dennis: ” I said “It appears that the majority of the people reading this blog are believers in the alkaline type diet”

      Once again: IT APPEARS………

      Let me explain what I mean by this. I know it’s complicated.”

      Apparently it is pretty complicated for you. I know what “appears” is and was asking how you came to your conclusion. Just because it “appears” to you that way this does not mean that it appears that way to everyone. So I was simply asking how you came to your conclusion since I see no evidence that makes it “appear” the way you saw it. Understand now, or do I need to break it down in to a simpler explanation for you?

      Dennis: “If you can read again, my comments, but this time with your hear OUTSIDE your ass”

      Wow, another childish temper tantrum all because you did not understand your own comment or my response.

      Dennis: “I NEVER said or ever implied that one can just ”think away” disease.”

      Actually you did. I know this is super complicated for you but I will do my best to explain it down on your level.

      Here is your quote:

      “9] Enter Dennis, [me], and makes the profound, if not unbelievable statement that, not only is disease is caused by the mind but that ALL manifestation originates from MIND, [individual and/or collective. Past and/or present]”

      So to start with you clearly state that “ALL manifestation originates from MIND”. In relation to what what was being discussed, which was psychosomatic illnesses and how the mind can heal them then your use of “manifestation” would clearly refer to not the manifestation of disease, but also manifestation of a cure that would require “thinking away” the disease.

      Before you try to argue this point and make even more of a fool of yourself let me now take you to your second quote:

      13] One more important clarification:
      a] Disease can be healed by way of the mind [can be easy, usually difficult]

      In other words “thinking away” the disease. Or are you now claiming that thinking is in no way involved in mind healing disease?

      Dennis: “You know, someone said “do not cast pearls before swine”.
      It is so obvious that you are the swine.

      In other words, it’s a waste of time trying to convince the lessor evolved and the ignorant. You will get it eventually.”

      Wow, two paragraphs and two more personal attacks. You clearly have a problem with being proven wrong, especially with your own words. As I pointed out earlier though stressing like that can lead to immune suppression leading to illness. Maybe you should go off an play while the grown ups who know what they are talking about talk. I would hate to see you get all stressed out over having your beliefs proven wrong and showing all your contradictions and you ending up sick.

  86. says

    James

    In response to “”Question for you: what is the biochemical process of spontaneous remissions?” you replied, “There is not a singular answer to this.”

    What evidence do you have to support that assertion?

    I agree with the following (which effectively gives a very specific singular cause):

    “A sudden contemporary belief in illness will actually reach back into the past, affecting the organism at that level, and inserting into the past experience of the cells the
    initiation of those biological events that will then seem to give birth to a present disease.

    In the current pivoting of its experience, therefore, your conscious mind directs not only the present, but future and past experience of deep neurological events.

    Cellular memory can be changed at any point. Present beliefs can insert into the past new memory, both psychologically and physically. The future is in no way predetermined on basic levels. This does not mean that the future cannot be predicted sometimes, for in practical terms you will often continue with certain lines of probability which can be seen “ahead of time.”

    Such predictions can affect the probabilities, of course, and reinforce a present line of belief. Physicians often wonder whether they should tell terminal patients of their impending deaths. There is great controversy. In some cases such a prediction can make death a fact — while its opposite can regenerate the patient’s belief in his or her own ability to live.

    No man will die simply because a physician tells him he is going to, however. No one is so at the mercy of another’s beliefs. Each individual, generally speaking, knows his challenges and overall programs, and the time of his death. But even such decisions can be altered at any time in your “now” — the entire body can be regenerated in a way that would be impossible to predict in usual medical terms.”
    [Jane Roberts, The Nature of Personal Reality.]

    • James says

      Steaphen: “In response to “”Question for you: what is the biochemical process of spontaneous remissions?” you replied, “There is not a singular answer to this.”

      What evidence do you have to support that assertion?”

      I really cannot believe that I have to explain this to you!!! I gave you TWO examples of sources of “spontaneous remissions”. Since “singular” refers to ONE, and I gave you TWO unrelated examples this shows that there is no singular cause and thus not a singular answer.

  87. Paleo Huntress says

    I’m following the Cool Color diet! I used to eat Cheetos, Swedish Fish and Twinkies, but their warm color load was too much for my system and I developed diabetes, heart disease and fibromyalgia. Now I eat only cool color foods like blueberries, spinach and eggplant. I feel so much better, and my health has improved dramatically.

    If you avoid warm colored foods like Doritos, Orange Crush and Red Velvet cake and eat only cool colored foods like kale, cabbage and bell peppers, you’ll be right as rain.

    Foods from the Cool Color spectrum are best for optimum health and longevity. Just look at all of the other people eating the Cool Color Diet who’ve had so much improvement in their health. Clearly, red, yellow and orange foods cause disease while blue, green and purple foods heal it.

    /pointedsarcasm

    • finndian says

      One needs only to google your handle to see that you go from forum to forum taking the contrarian position to stir up trouble. You are the very definition of a TROLL.

      As the poster Thea tells someone on the forum where you argue that eating mercury laden fish is A-OK”

      “If you aren’t Paleo Huntress herself, you are her identical twin. So, I’m leaving the conversation here. If you want to eat fish, go for it. May you live long and prosper.”

      Troll.

      • Paleo Huntress says

        Finndian,

        I suggested you google my ID twice in this thread (do your due diligence and plug our names into a search engine and plug my ID into any search engine“,)– your superior tone over having taken my advice is a little odd. Still though, if you’re going to quote me, at the very least, quote ME and not just someone who thinks the person they’re responding to sounds like me. For example, in that same forum I myself wrote,

        “[I]f we measure the heavy metals on their own we will conclude that the fish aren’t safe to eat, but when compared to a low selenium, mercury-contaminated, plant-food (like rice), the fish would actually be safer to eat because the net value of mercury absorbed will be lower.” ~Paleo Huntress, NutritionFacts.org 9/6/2013.

        I learned about this here, in Chris’s blog. Since writing that however, I’ve learned that I misunderstood, and that the mechanism has little to do with selenium binding mercury, and more to do with mercury’s impact on our selenium levels. ~shrugs~ I’m always looking to update my understanding.

        What’s ALSO odd are your continued criticisms of the participants in this particular forum, as you appear unfamiliar with Chris’ (the author’s) position on food and nutrition in general, which suggests you don’t frequent his blog. In Chris’ podcast RHR: The Truth About Toxic Mercury in Fish, he interviews Dr. Nicholas Ralston, an expert in mercury in fish and the protective effects of selenium. In that post, we find this-

        “[M]ost people do not eat enough cold-water, fatty fish, and this is especially true of pregnant women. Concern about mercury toxicity is one of the main reasons for this. But as you’ll learn in this episode, such concerns are unfounded and not supported by the science.”

        There is also this blog post of Chris’- Is eating fish safe? A lot safer than not eating fish!

        Chris writes,

        –Selenium protects against mercury toxicity, and 16 of the 25 highest dietary sources of selenium are ocean fish
        –If a fish contains higher levels of selenium than mercury, it is safe to eat
        –Most species of commonly eaten fish in the U.S. have more selenium than mercury
        –Fish are not significant sources of PCBs and dioxins when compared to meat, dairy or vegetables
        –The benefits of eating fish regularly far outweigh the potential risks, which are negligible
        –Pregnant mothers and young children should eat 2-3 servings of oily ocean fish each week

        And this-

        Is it safe to eat fish?

        You might be surprised to learn that the answer is a resounding yes. In this article I’ll demonstrate that concerns about toxins in fish have been overblown, and that there is almost no risk associated with eating fish when a few simple precautions are taken.

        So while your tenacity is admirable, your witch-hunt leaves much to be desired since the blog-owner himself is a proponent of fish-consumption and an advocate for education on the topic.

        As for your repeated “troll” accusations, not only are they tedious, but it is a card commonly played by people who resent a well-argued, opposing position. The internet is overflowing with folks accusing those who disagree with them of being trolls. I’m a prolific poster… I post in nutrition forums a great deal… I am passionate about nutrition and often confrontational when I post (more so than I like at times) … and still, NONE of that makes me a troll.

        “Let’s define what trolling is. Trolling is when someone expresses a belief or takes action they DO NOT GENERALLY AGREE WITH [emphasis added] for the sole purpose of the negative reaction it will create. Trolling is not expressing a genuine belief or conviction.”

        “Merely because a [statement] creates strong emotional reactions does not mean the author is trolling. It may simply mean that you feel triggered by a different viewpoint. Writing “are you serious?” in response to rationally argued beliefs shows an inability to empathize with or seek to understand the perspectives of others. Labeling someone else a troll is a tool the ego uses to protect itself, and avoid change. People comfortable with their own beliefs are capable of rationally confronting the writings of those who disagree with them.” ~How Misconceptions About Trolling Threaten Society

        The pH debate is certainly James’ forte. If you’ve Googled his name, you know that he discusses the science behind it in several forums, including his own. And since you’ve googled me, you know I discuss nutrition in general in several forums as well. This is MORE than enough evidence that we are expressing genuine beliefs and convictions and are therefore not trolling. Your input on the blog topic is welcome, but you haven’t posted anything but personal attacks in weeks. Don’t you have anything better to do then scour the internet in hopes of finding ammunition you can use to build into another ad hominem? By the true definition of “troll”, it is your recent posts that are fit “the very definition” of trolling.

    • says

      Dear Paleo Huntress

      As I alluded to above, if people are on a cool-colored diet and they’re getting results, please stay out of their way as they heal themselves. Naysayers are toxic elements in such people’s lives.

      Not sarcastic, in the least.

      now, I’d better go see how to stop getting email alerts to this thread :)

      Ciao

      • Paleo Huntress says

        Steaphen,

        I think you misunderstand my intent. If we were talking about robbing a small child of the wonder of Christmas by ruining her belief in Santa, I would agree. If we were talking about robbing a homeless, crack-addict of his motivation to get clean by ruining his belief in a “god”, I would also agree.

        That isn’t what we’re doing here. People come to Chris’ blog (and others like it) to learn the truth as is evidenced by science (and some come merely to insist he’s wrong, that’s OK too)- and of course, the “truth” is arguably subjective on many levels. Still though, showing someone the REAL mechanism of their new diet, is not going to harm them. And, if they’re intelligent and openminded, it will more often than not, help them. No one is even SUGGESTING that the people here who found health and renewed vigor from their “Alkaline Diet” were imagining it… it was VERY REAL… and not because they “believed” it would happen, but rather for very basic, biological and physiological reasons. Those reasons just don’t happen to include alkalization. As I pointed out in my mythical “Cool Colored Foods Diet” comment, the people who see these results are going from a diet full of processed junk food to a diet of whole food. THIS is the healing mechanism. THIS is the important take-away.

        People don’t need mythology to make good choices, and this idea of yours (and others) that supporting the mythology somehow supports the individual, ALWAYS backfires in the end. There are densely nutritious foods in the “acid forming” category that many people will benefit from eating, but that they may be afraid to eat because they’re afraid of the dreaded “acidity” they will cause. Fear of healthy foods based on mythology is not a good thing- it is THIS that is toxic.

        Trust people to make good choices based on good information. The last thing we need to do is build a dietary house of cards– they’re fragile and temporary. Tell people the TRUTH, let them make up their own minds, and forget the nanny-state.

        If people are still seeking information on the internet, they should be prepared to have their preconceptions challenged… MANY times… over and over. That’s what’s so cool about being a seeker, you are constantly learning new things. If instead, you are already fully invested in your current ideology, then for gawd’s sake, stay away from the internet! I will not be party to repeating the myths to support your belief system– I have my own truths to honor.

        Moral of the Story: If you switched to the whole food alkaline diet from the processed food SAD, it makes perfect sense that you are healthier. Yes, it was your diet.. Yes, you really are healthier, it isn’t your imagination OR the placebo effect. No, it had nothing to do with the mythical “alkalinity” suggested by the diet’s author. No, this in no way refutes the validity of the healing power of your whole-food diet. Soldier on, and perhaps consider adding some of the nutrient-dense whole foods you’ve been avoiding out of unsupported fear. You may find your diet more satisfying and more nourishing if you do so.

        • says

          “stay away from the internet!” — seriously, did you actually mean to say that? lol

          Now, you’re welcome to your beliefs even though they conflict with research that confirms: “We now have scientific proof that the mind can heal the body.

          This means that you have the innate ability to self-heal diseases, prevent life-threatening conditions, and supplement established drug and surgical procedures with mind body techniques that can improve your physiology, biochemistry, brain functioning, and genetic activity.”

          Now please do us all a favor and go off and tell Benson (and others) he’s a dill, a dummkopf, a dunce, a dunderhead. lol

          Diet is not the primary factor in maintaining health and wellbeing. You’re welcome to push your idealogy, based in strict mechanism, which denies the wonderfully creative abilities of people.

          Remind me: what exactly is the biochemical process of spontaneous remisions?

          • Paleo Huntress says

            Do you have anything whatsoever to add to the acid/alkaline conversation? That is what THIS conversation is about. I mean really, you seem to think that your subject matter applies to any and ALL health issues, so why not go find another forum that ISN’T specifically discussing health as it relates to the pH of food? That’s not a complicated request, it’s really, REALLY simple one.

            I’m going to assume that since you flounced off to learn to “stop getting email alerts” but you continue to respond, that you found unsubscribing to be too much of challenge. I think you should think really, REALLY hard about how much you want to stop getting them… and I’m sure they will stop coming. ;-)

            Then if that doesn’t work for you, I recommend clicking the little link at the bottom of the email and turning them off directly.

            If you still find yourself challenged, you can click here too. http://support.chriskresser.com/

            • says

              “you seem to think that your subject matter applies to any and ALL health issues”

              Absolutely. 100%. No exceptions. Anything less requires irrational disconnects that cannot be credibly argued.

        • says

          There is a “hierarchy of efficacy” in terms of regaining health, and roughly speaking it is:

          1. Mind (belief-system)
          2. Raw/alkaline-producing
          3. Wholefood
          4. “SAD” (white flour, processed etc)
          5.(Supplement): exercise, physical movement

          Now, strong 1 with 4, is sufficient for maintaining health.
          Strong 1, and 2 (with 5) would be optimal for regaining health when facing serious illness.
          poor, negative-orientated 1, with 3 won’t save you.
          poor, negative-orientated 1, with 4 and no 5 … well we know that scenario.

          5. is listed as supplemental because it is not essential to life. 1, coupled with 2,3 or 4 are essential, in some form.

        • says

          btw, I am Steaphen Pirie, author of “BE and BECOME”, and “Simple Tools for Clarity, Understanding and Betterment”

          I am open about who I am (I don’t use an alias) and what I believe, and I share what I have found to be the most effective path to regaining wellness.

          I utilize the many profound discoveries of quantum physics, in conjunction with the wisdom that has been handed down through the ages by many great sages, to help people on their journeys.

          You can read more about me http://beliefinstitute.com/bio/steaphen-pirie

          • Paleo Huntress says

            I’m not interested in reading more about you. You’ve found a way to make money off of people’s disease, congratulations… you’re in good company. Clearly you have your own forums in which to discuss your woo. Please take it there.

  88. Dennis says

    Here is a summery of the events on this blog

    [and why people should NOT listen to James if they are
    ON or considering, what is thought of as an alkaline diet]

    1] It appears that the majority of the people reading this blog are believers in the alkaline type diet as a result of experience or a feeling or intuition that it makes sense.

    2] Naturally, people have asked questions concerning alkalinity or acidity in various area of the body.

    3] It appears to me, James has accurately corrected some peoples miss understandings of alkaline and acid in the body.

    4] James has presented a number of accurate, facts of details which he has learned, in part, from scientific journals.

    5] Based on these facts, he concludes the alkaline diet is, [my word], bogus, which in a microcosmic sense, APPEARS to be true.

    6] The problem is, James and a very few others fail at understanding what most of us have EXPERIENCED and/or are able to understand, that there is a bigger picture that his facts do not and cannot address.

    7] Science and the medical establishment are not even close to understanding the body, but there has been significant progress in the understanding that, to know the TRUTH of health, diet and the body, one has to include the mind.

    8] Enter Steaphen and challenges James and discuses the mind-body connection.

    9] Enter Dennis, [me], and makes the profound, if not unbelievable statement that, not only is disease is caused by the mind but that ALL manifestation originates from MIND, [individual and/or collective. Past and/or present]

    10] When people mention that some percentage, like 25% of diseases are psychosomatic, or that stress is responsible of some diseases, that is just the conclusion of only the beginning of the understanding of the mind-body connection.

    11] The mind actually alters the biochemical functions within the cells of all the major organ systems and tissues of the body. So what we actually have a a MIND-GENE CONNECTION.

    12] Simply put. There is nothing that influences the MIND that does not influence the BODY and there is nothing that influences the BODY that does not influence the MIND.

    13] One more important clarification:
    a] Disease can be healed by way of the mind [can be easy, usually difficult]

    b] Disease can be healed by way of the body, [much easier and I suspect that when you heal this way, it is at least somewhat, the mind that is healed which in turn heals the body.

    14] So unless anyone want to discuss more details of the mind-body connection, I will TRY to end my comments on this matter since a few of you believe that it is not appropriate for this blog, although I believe there is a natural flow to any conversation, including this blog, so why try to restrict and limit that flow if we are learning? I’ve learned things, even from James.

    15] I know there are many of you that have ill will towards James and his friends. Try to check this. This is only his way of trying to help people as it is also my way.

    Thanks for listening

    • says

      Hi Dennis

      A wonderfully erudite summary, if I may say. Your ideas and profoundity are quite easily accommodated with experience, and/or a study of the extraordinary implications of quantum physics.

      And your remarks about the contributations by Chris and James are pertinent and balanced.

      I hope that some who are in trouble, physiologically, will find within your words, (and mine) some realization that solutions (beyond standard medical thinking) are available, and most importanly, that they are effective.

      In my experience, when seriously ill, a deep-seated belief in natural healing (without recourse to medications that invariably have side-effects, some as serious as the disease itself) is vitally important. An extraordinary degree of focus and confidence is demanded. It’s not a matter of wishful thinking. It requires a deep felt-analysis of one’s beliefs, and the relationships and stress that can be quite toxic, as well as (and this is the really hard part) the courage to let go those relationships, beliefs, elements that are toxic.

      Okay, that said, I’m outta here … I will say to James, Chris and others of like mind, “The person who says it cannot be done should not interrupt the person doing it.”

      That quote, along with some very helpful background information on the Simonton Cancer Center, is at http://thesimontondocumentary.org/about_dr_simonton

      And no, I’m not associated with, or have any vested interest in the center. Never even been there, or communicated with anyone from there.

      Cheers

    • James says

      Once again we have someone attacking the messenger since they cannot attack the evidence already presented. If someone has solid evidence to the contrary then they present it. When they have no real evidence or any clue what they are talking about they instead attack the messenger trying to discredit the messenger since they cannot discredit the evidence.

      And once again I have to point out to these morons that the topic of this blog is not me but rather the myth of acid-alkaline balance. Why don’t these people stay on topic? Simple, because they have NO evidence to counter the evidence already presented. So all they can do to fill their overwhelming desire to argue is to argue off topic with THEIR belief system even if it is wrong.

      Dennis: ” It appears that the majority of the people reading this blog are believers in the alkaline type diet”

      Based on what? Did you poll all the readers of this blog to determine this or are you just assuming as usual?

      Dennis: “It appears to me, James has accurately corrected some peoples miss understandings of alkaline and acid in the body.”

      Who is “miss understandings”? Is she related to Miss America?

      Dennis: “The problem is, James and a very few others fail at understanding what most of us have EXPERIENCED and/or are able to understand”

      The real problem is that most of the people who believe the alkalize or die myth have NO clue how the body really works. For example, many alkaline supporters do not realize that all foods are metabolized in to acids. So there is no such thing as a truly alkaline food. The health benefits people get from what is referred to as an “alkaline diet’ has NOTHING to do with alkalizing since the body maintains an alkaline blood pH regardless of what we eat. The health benefits of this diet come from the higher nutrient level, including beneficial acids derived from this diet. If these people would learn how to use some common sense and do a little basic research they would realize these facts. But some people prefer to live by the “ignorance is bliss” model.

      Dennis: “Science and the medical establishment are not even close to understanding the body”

      I keep hearing this same myth being made by those who prefer to live in the dark. If people really want to be enlightened then they would pick up and read some anatomy and physiology books and look at all the research readily available on places such as PubMed so they can see how much as been learned about the body in modern times. Instead, people like Steaphen and Dennis prefer to remain in the dark ages believing that hardly anything has been learned about the human body. We have advanced so far in this field that we know of thousands of chemicals in the humans body and how they affect our function. All anyone has to do in order to realize this FACT is to spend a little time doing some simple research. They cannot do this by playing ostrich and sticking their heads in the sand.

      Dennis: “Enter Steaphen and challenges James and discuses the mind-body connection.”

      Which I acknowledged but also pointed out numerous times is off topic. Some people are just too dense to get such a simple fact though. Just like they are too dense to grasp the concept that I am not the topic of this blog either. Of course if they are so dense that they cannot grasp such simple concepts then I guess that is why they are so dense that they cannot grasp the other simple concepts already explained to them.

      Dennis: “The mind actually alters the biochemical functions within the cells of all the major organ systems and tissues of the body.”

      I can see now where some of Dennis’ confusion is coming from.

      When discussing the mind-body connection I am discussing the role of the mind in psychosomatic illnesses and the role the mind plays in countering these rare diseases,

      Dennis is expanding this topic to include the well known roles of compounds such as neurotransmitters, peptides and hormones that affect everything in the body including movement, mood, desires, pain, immunity, etc. Of course we know the functions of these various compounds because we know so much about how the body really functions thanks to modern research.

      The problem here is that some of these compounds, such as high levels of cortisol, can lead to disease in part through immune suppression. This leaves people prone to disease from pathogenic infection, which IS NOT the same thing as a psychosomatic illness. You cannot simply think away a pathogenic infection or disease caused by a pathogen such as most cancers.

  89. says

    Hi James

    You’ve argued in this column that biochemical fact A produces physiological effect B, despite evidence that mind (psycho-social circumstances) can and does change one’s biochemistry.

    If you were to apply good science, in the form of psycho-social circumstance A was correlated with biochemcal fact B, which evidenced as physiological effect C, then you’d be a better scientist, and one worthy of commendation.

    • James says

      Steaphen: “You’ve argued in this column that biochemical fact A produces physiological effect B”

      You are right, it is a FACT. Now do you know what a “fact” is?

      Steaphen: “despite evidence that mind (psycho-social circumstances) can and does change one’s biochemistry.”

      Nobody has argued that this does not exist. I even posted on this several times in agreement with you talking about the RARE psychosomatic disorders and how social, and thus environmental, factors can influence disease through nutritional deficiencies and increased susceptibility to pathogens.

      So you either don’t understand your own ramblings as you are arguing with someone who backed your points or you are arguing over something you clearly do not understand just to argue.

      Now, once again, how about getting back on to topic of the acid-alkaline myth as the title of this blog article clearly states?

      • says

        Hi James

        Please excuse what seems to you my less than erudite ramblings :)
        My understanding and experience is Mind (cause) -> biochemstry (after-effect) -> physiology (after-after-effect).
        Question for you: what is the biochemical process of spontaneous remissions? — without your referring to superstitious explanations of chance, statistics etc — I’ll assume you’re familiar with the literal definition of supersition aka, chance.
        There’s a subtely in this thread that I think some would like addressed — your mechanical world view that disallows the enormous power of belief. Chris Kresser is not so overt with his mechanical-universe views. You are quite openly mechanically orientated, and that can (and does) great harm in the realm of natural healing methodologies.
        In my work, my colleagues assist with giving biochemical tests. But that’s to placate various sections of the community. Natural, intuitive healing methodologies don’t require them.
        That said, I accept that someone such as yourself, along with Chris and Paleo Huntress, will see my responses as ‘ramblings’, incoherent, idiotic .. whatever. Others like Dennis will be quietly agreeing, perhaps with better sense in not replying, seeing the dogmas involved that are steadfastly maintained.
        Ciao.

        • James says

          Steaphen,

          I don’t know why you have such an overwhelming urge, more like compulsive urge, to keep posting off topic despite several people asking you to stay on topic. I wonder is obsessive compulsive disorder can be psychosomatic? If so there could be help for you yet.

          But I will respond to your one question:

          “Question for you: what is the biochemical process of spontaneous remissions? ”

          There is not a singular answer to this. Can it be from someone dealing with a psychosomatic disorder? Yes, and I have experienced this personally.

          On the other hand I have also seen cases of what were referred to as “spontaneous remissions” when people simply got off their medications that were the real underlying cause of their disease/disorder.

          As an example, there was a reported case of a man who had a “spontaneous remission” from his AIDS. What people need to realize though that AIDS is not a disease, it is a syndrome. AIDS is an acronym for acquired immune deficiency SYNDROME. Even many so-called AIDS experts have no idea what a syndrome is. If they did then they would not be calling AIDS a “disease” and they would realize that AIDS has more than one cause. One of the primary causes of the syndrome AIDS are the medications given to AIDS patients. In particular AZT (zidovudine) and its analogues. AZT was invested in 1962 as a chemotherapy drug for cancer. It was not developed for AIDS as so many people incorrectly believe. AZT was found to be so deadly though that it was actually banned for human use initially. When AIDS “appeared” the drug was brought back on the market to recoup lost investments despite the fact that AZT can cause AIDS by doing what HIV cannot do, which is to completely collapse the immune system. In fact, HIV cannot cause AIDS under the original definition, which is why the definition of AIDS was changed to fit the HIV virus in the early 80s. Even the largest study ever conducted on AZT, the Concorde Study, found that the AZT shorted the lives of people testing HIV positive.

          The reason I bring all of this up is that in the case I mentioned earlier the man that had what was deemed a “spontaneous remission” recovered after he discontinued his AZT. This allowed the bone marrow destroyed by the AZT to regenerate allowing the immune system to recover. Keep in mind that ALL immune cells, including CD4 cells, start out as undifferentiated stem cells produced in the bone marrow.

          Bottom line is that not all “spontaneous remissions” involve the mind-body connection.

          Now once again, I ask you to stay on topic, which is the acid-alkaline myth, not the mind-body connection.

  90. says

    Hi Paleo Huntress

    In reply to your post, date-time March 14, 2014 at 6:10 am

    “I’m also not clear on how organisms that DON’T have the ability to “think” …”

    Physicist Freeman Dyson explains:

    “Quantum mechanics makes matter even in the smallest pieces into an active agent, and I think that is something very fundamental. Every particle in the universe is an active agent making choices between random processes … consciousness is not just a passive epiphenomenon carried along by the chemical events in our brains, but is an active agent forcing the molecular complexes to make choices between one quantum state and another. In other words, mind is already inherent in every electron, and the processes of human consciousness differ only in degree but not in kind from the processes of choice between quantum states which we call ‘chance’ when they are made by electrons.”

    • says

      It is exceedingly helpful to work with a holodynamic-systems perspective. Then “it” all falls into place, and the **relative** merit and importance of pills, potions, mind and notions becomes clear.

      Downward causation limits individuals (be they electrons, viruses, or people within communities), and dysfunctional systems will ensure a corresponding effect within said systems (hence epidemics etc).

    • Paleo Huntress says

      As I wrote, a topic for another forum. I find the ideas quite fascinating, but they don’t belong here, they’re diluting the topic of this thread. I’m sure that there are many forums where this discussion would be more appropriate, and I can’t force you to take it there, but I am asking politely. Please stop.

      • says

        Dear Paleo Huntress

        As I responded to James, “This information is related to the topic of this blog, insofar as you’re purporting to establish fact versus “myth”, but have yet to provide a credible basis for your beliefs (beliefs that are not congruent with the dominant psycho-social causative factors of good health and wellbeing).

        Specifically, in your self-proclaimed ‘rant’, you say “One behavior that never fails to rankle me is the assignment of absolute cause where there is none”, and then go on to assign wholefoods as the sole reason for their wellness.

        Is it your contention that people on wholefood diets (with or without consuming organic meats etc) never get sick?

        If not, then you’ve erroneously assigned ‘wholefoods’ as the sole determinant, when obviously there are other determinants at work.

        Long story short: I largely agree with your argument that people falsedly believe their diet will ensure health, or whatever.

        I believe it is prudent for you to acquaint yourself with the facts regarding psycho-social factors, so that you can let go your need for said rants.

      • says

        Hi Paleo Huntress

        Despite appearances I largely agree with your comments.

        However, people believe what they believe for a reason.

        Simply negating people’s faith in the efficacy of one particular diet, won’t help them. They took on that belief, or faith in a particular diet, in order (most likely) to offset the highly pernicious negativity within medicine (victims to bugs in the environment etc).

        So, I think it behoves all, if you were to recognize the underlying causative factors, and thus, avoid the need to replace one partially effective belief, with another.

        Getting their psycho-social circumstances sorted out, is far and away more beneficial than arguing over which chemicals or diets do what, and how.

        Dr Herbert Benson doesn’t suggest mind can heal the body only a good day, when facing East while standing on one leg. Mind can heal the body. Period. That healing process will likely involve changing to wholefoods, or in serious illness, raw foods. But diet, according to the data I’ve seen, is not the primary determining factor in their regaining wellness. If people have no will to live, they won’t even both with that nice, raw stick of carrot, or much of anything else.

  91. Dennis says

    Steaphen,

    “[Some however may misinterpret the quote, as implying that mere wishful thinking is sufficient to manifest reality.]”

    It’s good you clarified that. Yes, if one wants to consciously manifest..what they want, then usually, it has to be directed with intent and power in a specific way.

    Here is a fun fact of a practical nature, for anyone that still may be reading our conversation.

    There are exceptions, but usually cancer is manifested over a long period, like good part of one’s life created by a very specific type of thought. Conscious or subconscious.

    Let’s say someone has a 4″ inoperable tumor.

    Theoretically, you, me and our friend James could get together, and with a coherent and unified mental technique, we could dissolve that tumor in a few minutes and it won’t matter what the patient is thinking or believing.

    This, of course, is using the natural law of “energy follows thought” or what we put our attention on, energy increases in that area. Distance is not a factor.

    This is being done today and I believe will be one THE health care procedures of the near future.

    Since this does take some skill, I always refer people with cancer to one or two doctors that are using lifestyle improvement and nutrition to systematically eliminate their cancer.

    • says

      Hi Dennis,

      I disagree with you about “we could dissolve that tumor in a few minutes and it won’t matter what the patient is thinking or believing.”

      There’s a fundamental violation of personal reality, if that were true.

      Years ago I enjoyed reading many Seth books, and one idea that is again and again affirmed, is that no one is subject to, or victim to unconscious forces over which they have no control. Ever.

      Here’s the thing: if we can heal people without their consent or agreement, we can also harm them (with “thoughts”).

      That violates some very deep, and irreduciable principles of holodynamic systems principles. The validity and strength of the whole rides directly on the validity and the strength of each part within creation.

      So you may help heal others, but it will always be in concert with the volition, desires and permission of the recipient.

      • Dennis says

        Steaphen,

        I stand…….I mean…. I SIT corrected.

        I neglected that crucial point. We have to get permission.

        My niece has schizophrenia and before her mother, father and other uncles could use the technique I developed for her, I visited her in the hospital specifically to get her permission for us to help her.
        That was not easy for me to do. I loath hospitals. That environment will kill you faster than almost anything.

        • says

          Hi Dennis

          I wholeheartedly agree — hospitals are no place for sick people. lol

          There are a few exceptions — when the body is broken (e.g. broken limbs) or has suffered severe trauma, they do serve a highly valuable service.

          But for illnesses, no, hospitals are not the best option for those seeking wellness. If you read Norman Cousins’ book “Anatomy of an Illness” he had to check himself out of hospital, and rent a hotel room, in order to recover. That’s not to deny reality — that many recover while in hospital, but that’s more due to the rest, nurturing and encouragement of staff, family and friends, than standard medical practices.

          • Dennis says

            Good. Once again. Your comment allows us to give a more complete picture of the truth.

            One of my long standing “lectures” to people as to, ‘how to keep your immune system functioning optimally’,…….I say, you must, if at all possible, stay away from these places; prisons, bars, psych wards and hospitals.

            I’m not a bio-chemist but I’m quite sure that the mere thinking of word ‘hospital’, will immediately cause the immune system to malfunction, [I predict you will know of some quote of someone in authority, who verify that.]

            Yes, yes yes. As I speak out against the medical establishment, In the same breath, I say to people, BUT if you have an emergency and/or you don’t know what else to do for your health situation, you have to go to the hospital.

            I think we agree. Doctors are very good for emergency situations and fairly good at diagnosing health problems, but that’s about it.

            P.S.
            That was one good thing that came out of the Civil War. It allowed doctors to learn SO much more for many emergencies than they every knew. Great on the job training that I suppose we are benefiting from, to this day.

  92. says

    There appears to be an important element missing in the discussion (alkaline-producing diets).

    I think James and Huntress allude to, or infer that our bodies are complex biochemical systems, subject to, or responsive to various nutrients, chemicals, medications etc.

    However, as Dr Herbert Benson (Harvard) explains:

    “We now have scientific proof that the mind can heal the body.

    This means that you have the innate ability to self-heal diseases, prevent life-threatening conditions, and supplement established drug and surgical procedures with mind body techniques that can improve your physiology, biochemistry, brain functioning, and genetic activity.”

    I believe those who argue for alkaline-producing diets, and the efficacy thereof, have a valid argument, based on Benson’s research. It is our attitude to our diets that matter most — coincidentally those on junk food diets will likely hold correspondingly poor attitudes to health. However a poor diet does not preclude people remaining well.

    The important thing is that those in trouble be given ample encouragement to engage an alkaline-producing diet … if nothing else to minimize extraneous or complicating factors on the path to regain health.

    I recall that the Simonton Instute in California advocates a raw food diet for their cancer patients (which by its nature will be majority alkaline-producing). But they also focus on mind, meditation, belief-systems etc.

    So despite all the technical detail about which chemicals do what and how, it is secondary to the relationships and attitudes people hold. My suggestion is to start there (beliefs, meditation, expectations) and supplement with raw food or majority alkalizine-producing foods.

    Personally, in the past when ill I found great benefit in occasionally engaging a highly alkaline-producing diet. But I don’t get too worried about being overly strict in that regard. In my experience, a negative attitude, stress and related emotional states have a far greater detrimental effect upon one’s health.

    A corollary of the above idea that mind can heal the body: the body is a fluid, cooperative system that responds to our deepest and most intimately-held beliefs, attitudes and expectations … e.g. affecting how we metabolize food; inducing allergies in order to highlight unfavourable conditions in our environment (emotional and physical) etc.

    • Dennis says

      A good and accurate comment of which I will back up 100%.

      I will also mention that, not only the mind can heal and prevent disease but the actual cause of disease begins in the mind.

      Having taught and practiced this concept for 40+ years, I have found though, that it can be difficult to heal diseases solely by thought, since it may not be easy to know, exactly what negative thinking pattern caused the particular disease in question.

      So I agree. Work on ANY negative thinking, attitude or emotions AND improve the diet.

      • says

        Hi Dennis

        I agree with you that “not only the mind can heal and prevent disease but the actual cause of disease begins in the mind.”

        I was reluctant to say as much … those in trouble (e.g. with cancer) are under enough stress, let alone adding the idea that they caused the cancer (via whichever beliefs, emotions, choices etc) in the first place.

        Which is to say, stay focused on health, and let go the need for analysis of what caused the problems in the first place as that is largely irrelevant when ill. Going forward is the key (visualisation of wellbeing, what you will hear from friends and family etc) is crucial. (There’s some research in the field of quantum science that shows we choose which past we experience, based on present choices — i.e. the past does not “cause” the present, so it’s a “waste of time” to look there for the solutions to how to be well)

      • James says

        Dennis: “I will also mention that, not only the mind can heal and prevent disease but the actual cause of disease begins in the mind.”

        Yes, the mind can cause illness. These are called psychosomatic illnesses. But this does not mean that all diseases are caused by the mind. Most diseases are caused from pathogens. Stress, and nutritional deficiencies though can weaken the immune system though making us more prone to the effects of these pathogens.

        • Dennis says

          James. You are incorrect. You’re missing the bigger picture. Please be careful about giving out misinformation.

          • James says

            Dennis,

            I am not incorrect, which is why you responded without proof to your claim I am wrong.

            I have heard all the anti-germ theory propaganda. But in those cases it is also the same where people cannot back their anti-germ theory claims. They just read the bogus propaganda somewhere and take it as the gospel.

            • Dennis says

              James, Please read these words carefully and if you do not get it then keep pondering them until you do.

              “There is nothing in manifestation that is not created by thought.”

              I could get into much more detail of the exact process of how this works but if one’s level of attunement does not allow them to understand, then no amount of explaining will help.

              • says

                Hi Dennis

                I’m not familiar with who wrote or said that “There is nothing in manifestation that is not created by thought”

                In any event, many interpret the “thinking” and :thought” differently.

                In my work I explain beliefs involve thoughts, emotions, expectations, faith etc.

                • Dennis says

                  Steaphen;

                  For most practical purposes, they can be considered as the same.

                  It’s just that [thoughts, emotions, expectations, faith etc.] are what we become aware of after they spring from the original impulse of energy which is a thought.

              • says

                I should add, I agree with the thrust of the statement. I understand such use of the word “thought”, e.g. like Sir James Jeans

                ‘The universe looks more and more like a great thought rather than a great machine.”

                Some however may misinterpret the quote, as implying that mere wishful thinking is sufficient to manifest reality.

              • Paleo Huntress says

                The Native Americans weren’t decimated by thought, they were decimated by the Small Pox virus.

                While I can certainly appreciate that our minds have power and I know that the placebo effect is a very real thing, when the placebo effect is controlled for, we still find that illness, drugs and other treatments are very real and that they have very real effects all on their own.

                If you don’t believe there is anything valid in either considering or dismissing the acid/alkaline theory, what is the purpose of your contribution? Why would you even follow a medical practitioner’s blog if you believed there was nothing to the physical? And if you don’t routinely follow, why would choose this conversation to get involved in?

                Do you routinely post comments in nutrition/medicine blogs telling folks that there is no practical or physical change that they can make that would be more helpful than the mind?

                I’m not really clear on what you’re bringing to the discussion.

                I’m also not clear on how organisms that DON’T have the ability to “think” can be killed by pathogens… but that is a topic for another forum.

              • says

                Dear Paleo Huntress

                To whom are you responding?

                If me, I’m not sure what your point is.

                “there is no practical or physical change that they can make that would be more helpful than the mind?”

                Where have I implied physicality — diet etc — is not important?

                Have you read my replies earlier regarding the Simonton Institute, or my experience of benefitting from an alkalizing diet?

                I do ask (if your reply was directed at me) that you be so courteous as to not misquote me.

                As for Native Americans, you could also reference the 20+million who died during and just after WW1. Or around half the population of Europe that died due to the Black Plague. Again, what is your point? Have you evidence that poor psycho-social factors played no part in those epidemics?

                • says

                  whoops, my bad.

                  50-100 million dead from the Influenza epidemic of 1918. I believe influenze of WW1 reached remote Pacific islands and the Arctic,

                • James says

                  Steaphen: “Have you evidence that poor psycho-social factors played no part in those epidemics?”

                  First of all it is not up to other people to disprove your claims. It is up to the claimant to prove their claims. People only ask other people to disprove them when they have no clue what they are talking about and cannot prove their claims. So they try to hide this fact by trying to get others to prove their negative, which is impossible. How can anyone prove that most diseases are not caused by psychosomatics when you as the claimant cannot prove they are since there is no way to prove either way?

                  Now, can social factors play a role in diseases? Of course. For example, in parts of the world where poor sanitation and poor nutrition leave people more prone to disease from PATHOGENS, not psychosomatic illnesses. Same as in nature where groups of animals can be wiped out by pathogens despite not being prone to psychosomatic illness. A great example of this was when most of Iceland’s sheep population was wiped out by sheep maedna visna virus.

                  And finally, for the last time. All this is OFF TOPIC!!! The topic is the myth of being able to alkalize the body, which is already maintained in an alkaline state. If you are not intelligent enough to realize that this is what the topic is they why would anyone take any of your off topic rantings serious? If you want to discuss your claims about psycho-social influence on disease then go find a blog article or forum on the topic and rant away where people would love to argue your claims. But this is not the place or the topic of this blog.

                • says

                  Hi James
                  Nice try.
                  The information I provide is related to the topic of this blog, insofar as you’re promoting your opinion that alkaline-producing diets have no or little efficacy, despite evidence that people can and do benefit. Your opinion is based on an incorrect understanding of human physiology and biochemisty. As Dr Herbert stated, mind can change one’s biochemistry. So by all means continue your “rant” how various bits and pieces do whatever, but until you combine your biochemistry with the underlying psycho-social causes of that biochemstry, you’re argument is not grounded in good science.

      • says

        Hi Dennis

        I was quite ill about 25 years ago. Seriously ill. All sorts of tests were conducted: medical specialists conferred, discussed, oohed, and ahhhed.

        To this day I’m not entirely sure what caused the illness (if anyone has seen or read Anatomy of an Illness, by Norman Cousins you’ll have nearly a word-for-word description of my experience and diagnosis. Yes, almost completely locked up, pain, immobile, jaw locked shut etc. Coincidentally — only becoming aware years later — I did basically the same as he did: Raw carrot-apple juices, fresh salads, high ascorbic acid (Vit. C) intake, peaking around 90,000mg a day AND … an analysis of my beliefs, emotions, expectations etc).

        What became crucial was staying immensely focused on regaining wellness. In my experience dwelling on what might have been the cause was hugely counter-productive to my progress towards my then-future wellness.

        btw like Cousins I’ve been diagnosed with ankylosing spondylitis/HLA-B27 genetic marker. That only sharpens my focus to what I must do to remain well, and not get mired in past causes.

    • James says

      Hi Steaphen,

      I agree with you about the mind-body connection. I eat whatever and don’t follow any particular diet and I have always been very healthy. When people question me about my diet I point out to them that stress will kill you faster than bad diet.

      On the other hand the mind-body connection was not brought up because that was not the topic of the article. The topic is the mythical alkaline diet.

      By the way, in response to your statement:

      “I think James and Huntress allude to, or infer that our bodies are complex biochemical systems, subject to, or responsive to various nutrients, chemicals, medications etc.”

      Keep in mind that it is nutrients that produce our hormones, peptides and neurotransmitters that our emotions are subjected to. We DO NOT have feelings of love, anger, calm, etc. without these chemical compounds. And there are numerous chemical reactions that must occur for the production of these compounds. So yes, the body is a complex biochemical system, subject to, or responsive to various nutrients, chemicals, medications etc.

      James

      • says

        Hi James

        Re your “We DO NOT have feelings of love, anger, calm, etc. without these chemical compounds”

        You are welcome to that belief.

        It is not too difficult to show that mind transcends space-time, and in a very real sense, is in part non-physical, and independent of physicality (including chemicals, hormones etc).

        to be more specfic, correct solutions to Zeno’s Paradoxes reveal that reality is discontinuously physical, riding deeper interconnecting non-physical systems and connections.

        more at http://beliefinstitute.com/article/correct-solutions-zenos-paradoxes

      • says

        James

        Taking into account delayed-choice experimental data, the various interpretations of quantum fact, e.g. Consistent histories, MWI, and others, I fully concur with this quote of Jane Roberts:

        “A sudden contemporary belief in illness will actually reach back into the past, affecting the organism at that level, and inserting into the past experience of the cells the initiation of those biological events that will then seem to give birth to a present disease.

        In the current pivoting of its experience, therefore, your conscious mind directs not only the present, but future and past experience of deep neurological events.”

        We can accept these sorts of ideas, when we realize that all times exist at-once in the unlimited “fullness” of now, and any ideas to the contrary involve fundamental disconnects that are nonsensical, irrational and cannot be credibly argued.

      • says

        Hi James

        In response to your “On the other hand the mind-body connection was not brought up because that was not the topic of the article. The topic is the mythical alkaline diet.”

        In view of the fact (scientific proof) that mind can heal (change the biochemistry of) the body — the biochemical ‘facts’ that you have amply cited (in support of the argument that the alkaline diet is myth), are also “myth”: they are not “facts” totally independent of the subjects mind, beliefs, emotions.

        It is helpful to encourage the belief in the efficacy of an alkaline-diet while also bringing attention to their beliefs and expectations. It is not for nought that successful natural healing regimens go raw (food) and at the same time focus on beliefs, stress, meditation etc.

        A belief in a mechanical (biochemical) universe, which I sense is your world-view, can be shown to engender dis-ease — it necessarily requires (and is openly stated) that we are victims to random, chance events (mutations). That is perhaps the most pernicious, debilitating, disempowering belief ever perpetuated on the human race.

        All is interdependent, and we are far more knowing, intuitive and connected than any science can ‘measure’ or objectify. And, fortunately, that will remain the case. There’s a fullness to life that science can’t and won’t ever get to fully measure, dissect, or objectify (that conclusion easily follows from consideration of the literal meaning of the “infinite” which interconnects and underlies all life).

        • James says

          Steaphen,

          Just because something can happen does not mean it will happen. Yes, the mind can affect the body. I gave an example with psychosomatic illnesses. Bit this is not a major cause of illness for a simple reason. For psychosomatic illnesses to occur the person must be suggestible. A simple example of this is hypnosis. Not everyone can be hypnotized because the person must be suggestible to be hypnotized.

          For the mind to affect the body the person must also have a strong enough belief. For example the placebo effect, which I have personally seen. But again, this will not work with everyone.

          Diseases can have very real causes such as pathogens or injuries. You cannot just think these away.

          • says

            Hi James

            “I gave an example with psychosomatic illnesses. Bit this is not a major cause of illness for a simple reason.”

            over 30 years of solid, extensive research by Sir Prof. Michael Marmot and others confirms psycho-social factors are the major determinants of disease.

            factors such as genetics, smoking, pathogens account for around 25% of the cause — but even that figure will go down when they do more research on the prevailing beliefs and expectations of those afflicted.

            You are welcome to stick with (what I sense is your) mechanical universe views, but teaching that world-view to others will and does cause harm, by disempowering their ability to create a better reality, independent of the ‘facts’.

            • says

              “In the age of the genome and high-tech medical care, thinking about health typically turns to biology and technology. The discovery of how important control and participation are for health leads in a different direction: to the circumstances in which we live and work.”

              and

              “The key (to good health) lies in that most important organ, the brain. The psychological experience of inequality has profound effect on body systems”
              [source; Michael Marmot, “The Status Syndrome”]

            • James says

              Steaphen: “factors such as genetics, smoking, pathogens account for around 25% of the cause ”

              Not even close to being true, but again, this IS NOT the topic of the blog article so no need to continue addressing this misinformation.

              • says

                Extensive research conducted by Dr Michael Marmot during the 1990’s on British Civil Servants, found that the usual physical, life-style suspects in causing disease (smoking, diet, lack of physical exercise, obesity, heredity) accounted for around one quarter of the causes.

                As Professor Emeritus Len Syme of University of California explained, “those factors explain something like 25% – 35% of the gradient, but the rest is unexplained by those factors.”

                This information is related to the topic of this blog, insofar as you’re purporting to establish fact versus “myth”, but have yet to provide a credible basis for your beliefs (beliefs that are not congruent with the dominant psycho-social causative factors of good health and wellbeing).

          • says

            Hi James

            “Diseases can have very real causes such as pathogens or injuries. You cannot just think these away.”

            I think it would behoove you to state that “I cannot just think these away”.

            You are in no position to state what others can do.

            Besides, I’ve not inferred it is merely a matter of ‘thinking away’ disease — it is far deeper, and emotional than mere thought.

            The whole of society is in a placebo reality of being victims to ‘chance’ mutations. So from that base, yes, most can’t just think away their illnesses. There are deep cultural beliefs that need to be addressed, before we will see more people naturally healing themselves, sans medications, radiation therapies etc.

            Part of my work is to undermine (supersede) the superstitions of modern science — that we are victims to external influences, independent of our beliefs.

            A simple example: a person develops a strong belief in wellness — they will either intuitively avoid said pathogens, or prevail by changing the damaged biochemistry to heal their bodies.

            • says

              Correction: “Besides, I’ve not inferred it is merely a matter of ‘thinking away’ disease” should have read “Besides, I’ve not implied it is merely a matter of ‘thinking away’ disease …”

        • Dennis says

          Steaphen,

          We are clearly on the same page, although I do believe that science will catch up to the “higher knowledge” of Truth, eventually, in maybe 100 – 300 years, [just a guess], or at least come very close.

            • Dennis says

              Steaphen,

              I did have a qualification that I forgot to mention. These future scientists will have to be have to have fully unified consciousness.

              Having said that, I do realize that science will still have to fall just short, maybe.

              • says

                Hi Dennis

                If by science you mean strictly objective approaches: tools, analysis and measurable confirmation, then no, not ever, not even close (due to never being able to ‘ratio’ — stand apart from, the infinite).

                But when they develop a unified consciousness, as you put it, then they’ll “feel” the insideness to things, life, events, and know their genuine nature, without seeking to fully measure, reason and objectify reality.

                I like this quote from Jane Roberts:

                “(Einstein) was able to listen to the inner voice of matter. He was intuitively and emotionally led to his discoveries. He leaned against time, and felt it give and wobble.”

                Like many great scientists, artists and entrepreneurs — they “feel” the inside nature of business, ideas, life, and intuitively find their way forward, for wonderful benefit.

                • Dennis says

                  Steaphen; I can’t argue with your first comment.

                  I remember when I first heard that about Einstein back in the 70s. I thought it was super interesting. He first intuited the concepts then set out to prove them.

                  Science of the future will be occult or esoteric science of which I consider myself a scientist of.

        • says

          Hi James

          Perhaps I should explain more … there was an ancient belief that the world rested on an enormous tortoise (or on Atlas’s shoulders, same diff).

          As explained in in Stephen Hawking’s “A Brief History of Time”, this exchange occurred after a lecture by Bertrand Russell on astronomy:

          “… a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: “What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise.” The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, “What is the tortoise standing on?” “You’re very clever, young man, very clever,” said the old lady. “But it’s tortoises all the way down!”

          As physicist Max Planck explained: “… I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”

          We can’t ever get behind consciousness. We can’t get below the bottom tortoise. We can’t get outside the infinite.

          IN fact, the words “reason” and “rational” upon which science is based, is from the Latin root “ratio”. We cannot get “outside” of that which extends everywhere, in order to be ‘rational’ or reasonable about ‘it’.

          Science won’t (while restricted to limiting reason), ever get ‘outside’ in order to objectify life.

          • says

            more is explained here http://beliefdoctor.com/the-modern-superstitions-of-science-and-religion.html

            primarily, people will continue to hold a mechanical universe (physical cause-effect) world-view because of short-term expediency, immaturity/ignorance and greed.

            As physicist, Dr Bernard Haisch explains:

            “… the Leggett inequality that was recently measured … rules out any possible interpretation other than consciousness creates reality when the measurement is made.”

            And by measurement, he means when we make a choice and experience reality — every moment we are creating the world we experience. Put differently, the world we experience “pivots” on our beliefs. (an enhanced Many Worlds Interpretation, aka a holodynamic systems view means everything to the minutest detail is tied to our beliefs)

  93. Debra says

    As an interstitial cystitis patient, I beg to differ with you, Chris!
    The acid/alkaline debate will continue.
    Keeping my urine alkaline is first and foremost for the health of my bladder.
    And, it’s making a huge difference in my psoriasis.
    Can you explain this is in a way that convinces me that it is something other than my alkaline diet?

    • James says

      Hi Debra,

      I know you asked Chris, but I would like to answer you since I am very familiar with interstitial cystitis (IC) and psoriasis. And there is a common denominator between both of these.

      IC is the result of damage to the bladder wall, which can occur for several reasons. IC for example can be caused from over distention of the bladder and there is also evidence that bacterial infections can also lead to IC.

      Either way the wall of the bladder needs structural proteins to maintain health of the wall. One of the primary components of these structural proteins is ascorbic acid (vitamin C).

      Another role of ascorbic acid is supporting the adrenal glands, which get priority of ascorbic acid over the entire rest of the body. This also means that if there is not sufficient ascorbic acid present the adrenals will get priority while the other tissues can become deficient leading to a loss of structural proteins.

      As an example of this to understand the concept better look at methamphetamine addicts. Ever see how rapidly they look aged in their skin and how they tend to lose their teeth? The reason is that the methamphetamine severely taxes the adrenals increasing the requirement of ascorbic acid by the adrenal glands. Areas of the body such as the skin and bone become deficient in ascorbic acid leading to a decline in levels of structural proteins leading to wrinkles and tooth loss.

      Also keep in mind that IC is an inflammatory condition. The suffix “itis” as in interstitial cystitis means “inflammation of. Inflammation in the body is controlled by the corticosteroids released by the adrenal glands. Therefore, weakened adrenal glands lead to increased inflammatory responses in the body.

      Psoriasis is an inflammatory condition classified as an autoimmune disorder, which involves adrenal dysfunction. In short the adrenal glands regulate the production of the specificity of antibodies. When the adrenals are working properly the body produces primarily high affinity antibodies that are more specific to their antigen targets. If the adrenals are not functioning properly then the body can start producing what are known in medicine as low affinity or “autoantibodies” that are involved in the pathogenesis of autoimmune disorders.

      Therefore, part of the answer to your question has nothing to do with whether the blood or tissues are acid or alkaline. The so-called “alkaline diet” is richer in nutrients such as ascorbic acid and flavonoids that support not only the formation of structural proteins but also adrenal function, which reduces inflammation in both conditions.

      Another component to how the so-called “alkaline diet” helping with your psoriasis is that there is an imbalance between two of the body’s chemical messengers in the body known as cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP) and cyclic guanosine monophosphate (cGMP). Normally cAMP is dominant, but in psoriasis the cGMP, which stimulates the cellular proliferation in psoriasis is dominant. The so-called “alkaline diet” is not only higher in anti-inflammatory fatty acids, it is also higher in a flavonoid that blocks the enzyme cyclic adenosine monophosphate phosphodiesterase (cAMPPDE). Blocking cAMPPDE leads to an increase of cAMP restoring the balance between cAMP and cGMP therefore helping with the psoriasis.

      None of this has anything to do with alkalizing the blood, which is already maintained in an alkaline state.

      James

  94. Paleo Huntress says

    When you ask someone for evidence of their claims that their diet is the best diet, they invariably trot out trials comparing their whole-food diet of choice, to the Standard American Diet, and then proceed to behave as though the SAD represents every omni diet everywhere.

    It doesn’t.

    One behavior that never fails to rankle me is the assignment of absolute cause where there is none– and some of the ridiculous statements that come out of buying into that mythology. For example, how many times has one of us read something written by someone who is supposed to be an expert in nutrition, similar to the following,

    “… better lipid profiles than those eating the Western diet, based on red meat and saturated fat…”

    It is repeated ad nauseum by vegan gurus, their followers and even in scientific literature by many omni “experts”… One would expect then that if this is true, that the bulk of the calories in the Western Diet [SAD] come from red meat and saturated fat… Makes sense, right? But the fact is that according to the USDA’s Profiling Food Consumption in America Report, the SAD gets the bulk of its calories from plant foods, primarily grains/starches, sugar and plant fats. Meaning, THESE FOODS are what the SAD is actually based on– and not meat, especially red meat and saturated fat.

    Fast forward to the newly health-conscious person, looking for a healthier diet– and they’ve been seeing posts in FaceBook and at weight loss forums and on the news and in YouTube all talking about the health benefits of cutting out meat! And they think, “That must be the answer, so that’s what I’ll do. I want to be healthier and meat isn’t healthy so I’ll remove it from my diet because I want to be healthy.” <–[healthy user bias in the making]

    In doing so, they join some vegan forums, buy a few books from vegan gurus and start reading about the difference between a WFPB diet and a junk-food vegan diet… and they realize, removing the meat isn't enough if they’re still eating Twinkies and drinking soda. Any successful vegan will tell you that vegan junk-food will make you fat and sick just like omni junk-food.

    (But wait– 3/4 of the calories in the SAD are already “vegan” and a good part of that IS vegan junk-food, ie: processed grains, breads, white flour, pasta, sugar, vegetable oil, potato chips, soda…)

    So, the newly health-conscious person revamps their entire diet. They remove all grain or replace processed versions with whole grain version and maybe even soak/sour it to optimize nutrition. They cut out refined sugar, refined oil, white flour, artificial colors, preservatives and sweeteners, they may quit smoking or drinking– and they start eating fresh produce, drinking plain water or green tea, perhaps they start a fitness program, make it a point to get plenty of sleep, implement stress reduction practices like meditation… etc.. and in a month or two, like magic, they are RENEWED! And it shows! Brighter, more energetic, leaner… improved risk factors, etc…

    So you say to them, “You look great! What’s your secret?!”

    And their answer?

    “I stopped eating meat, I went vegan.”

    Right.

    Fact is that making the switch to whole foods and a healthier lifestyle causes the SAME improvements in both omnis and vegans, but omnis know it was the change to whole foods and the commitment to fitness and relaxation that is responsible, and most vegans are operating under the illusion that it was the removal of meat.

    Vegans, if it was the removal of meat that was responsible for your improved health, there would be no fat or diseased junk-food vegans… ever.

    Then there is the “Eat Right for Your Type Diet”:

    The MOST common blood type is type O, across ALL primary ethnicities. What is recommended for Type O?

    • Thrive on lean meats and vegetables.
    • Eat moderate (smaller) proportions.
    • Avoid Always (consider as poison) -Carbohydrates (breads and pastas), Refined Sugars, ALL Dairy, Grains (primarily wheat and corn, which inhibit insulin metabolism).
    • Requires efficient metabolism to stay lean and energetic. Avoid Grains, breads, legumes, beans, nuts, but especially gluten (found in wheat) to ensure weight loss.
    • Responds best to stress with intense physical exercise

    (Looks pretty paleo too, doesn’t it? lol Yeah, I’m biased.)

    Anyway, this is the diet being prescribed to the LARGEST segment of the population that chooses to give the ‘Eat Right for Your Type’ diet it a try. And what do you know, the majority of those who do, swear by it! But is it because they’ve matched their diet to their blood type or because what is prescribed for the majority of the world’s population (type O) is a whole food diet, high in fresh produce, low in grains and legumes, devoid of sugar, and processed foods… and having more intense activity to boot? Hmmmm…

    Fact is that making the switch to whole foods and a healthier lifestyle causes the SAME improvements in ALL blood types. But whole-food omnis know it was the change to whole foods and the commitment to fitness and relaxation, and most blood-type-dieters are operating under the illusion that it was eating right for their “type” that made the difference.

    Eat Right For Your Type dieters: If it was the “eating right for you blood type” that was responsible for your improved health, it would work for EVERYONE, regardless of blood type, and it doesn’t. Many type As especially, complain that they’re fat, stressed out and tired on their vegetarian, Type-A diets.

    Moving on:

    And finally (for this rant), there is the Alkaline Diet-

    This current debate about pH and all of the claims by those who swear (and I believe them) that they’ve seen tremendous improvement in their health and the health of others by following an “Alkaline Diet” falls into this category too.

    The following is a list of things to avoid (acidifying) on the Alkaline Diet- Pay special attention to the bolded items-

    Sugar, Cow’s Cheese, Homogenized Cow’s Milk, Ice Cream, Meat, Caffeine, Tobacco, Wheat (including flours, pastas and pastries), Corn Oil, Trans-fatty acids, Hydrogenated fats, Junk/Processed foods, Fizzy drinks/soda, Peanuts and Cashews (legumes), ALL GRAINS are acidifying, but the worst areWhite Rice, Corn, Oats, Rye, and barley, Potatoes, Condiments, Wine, Soy cheese/milk, table salt.

    The following is a list of things to consume (alkalinizing)-

    Goats milk/cheese, Whey, Spinach, Zucchini, Cabbage, Cauliflower, Eggplant, Pumpkin, Collards, Salad Greens, Berries, Dates, Figs, Papaya, Cherries, Bananas, Peaches, Pineapple, Almonds, Cold-water Fish (on occasion), Herbs & Spices, Olive and Flaxseed Oil, Some Fruits (Lemons, Lime, Grapefruit, Watermelon, Tomato, Avocado), Quinoa, Sprouts, Dips like-hummus/tahini/guacamole) sea salt etc.

    What is the MOST OBVIOUS difference between what is allowed and what is not? The diet eliminates ALL processed foods with the exception of a couple of “essential oils” and “whey”. It also eliminates (or severely limits) most grains and legumes along with the meat. The person who follows an alkaline diet is following a whole food diet, possibly for the first time in their lives– it will be lower-calorie and significantly more densely nutritious than their previous diet.

    Alkaline Diet dieters: If it was the “eating of an Alkaline Diet” that was responsible for your improved health, it would produce better outcomes than whole food omnis eating more “acidic” diets, and it doesn’t. Whole food omnis know it was the change to whole foods, and most Alkaline Diet-dieters are operating under the illusion that it was is the “alkalinity” of their new diet (real or imagined), compared to the acidity of their former diet (real or imagined) that made the difference.

    Good health is about eating WHOLE FOOD. Vegan dieters get healthy because of the switch from processed food to whole food. Paleo/Primals get healthy because of the switch from processed food to whole food. Eat Right for Your Type Dieters get healthy because of the switch from processed food to whole food. Alkaline Diet dieters get healthy because of the switch from processed food to whole food.

    NEWS FLASH!!! Every whole food diet is a SIGNIFICANT improvement over the American Standard Diet!! Showing that your favorite diet out-performs the SAD isn’t saying very much. Switch to whole food and then tweak until you find what works best for you and understand that your whole food diet is no better or worse than anyone else’s whole food diet if it’s working.

    • Paleo Huntress says

      EDIT: In case you’re reading this at Chris’ site and not as an email notification, the original post used HTML tags to signify the beginning and ending of a “rant”, but it seems the formatting eliminated them as invalid tags when it posted. My apologies to anyone who isn’t aware that they’re walking into a rant.

  95. Observer says

    I just observed how some commentators just so bad don’t want people to think that alkaline diet is healthy for the human body.

    I sometimes believe that some commentators work for pharmaceutical companies, or just get paid for it. I am sure those people exist! (where would pharmaceutical get income if people were healthy?)

    – Please provide first evidence that acidic nutrition is Healthy

    – best is, feed yourself with acidic nutrition for a whole year and come again

    Fact is that my fish cannot survive in acidic water in my aquarium.

    • Paleo Huntress says

      There is no such thing as “acidic nutrition”.

      Fact is, many fish do just fine in slightly “acidic” water. Values between 6 and 8 are ideal, which is a range of equal distance to either side of neutral. Below a pH of 4.5, (2.5 degrees more acidic than neutral) natural bodies of water are essentially devoid of fish. Scary.

      Fact is: Alkaline water can kill adult fish and invertebrate life directly and can also damage developing juvenile fish. It will strip a fish of its slime coat and high pH levels ‘chaps’ the skin of fish because of its alkalinity.

      When the pH of freshwater becomes highly alkaline (2.5 degrees more alkaline than neutral), the effects on fish may include: death, damage to outer surfaces like gills, eyes, and skin and an inability to dispose of metabolic wastes. High pH may also increase the toxicity of other substances. For example, the toxicity of ammonia is ten times more severe at a pH of 8 than it is at pH 7. It is directly toxic to aquatic life when it appears in alkaline conditions.

      Either extreme is dangerous… and that’s why the human body controls pH through BREATHING.

    • James says

      Observer: “I just observed how some commentators just so bad don’t want people to think that alkaline diet is healthy for the human body.”

      Nobody ever claimed that. If people paid attention to what they are reading and what has been said they would find that nobody has said an “alkaline diet” is not good for you. What is being pointed out is that there is no such thing as an alkalizing diet since 1. diet has little influence on pH and 2. the body maintains a tight control on pH REGARDLESS of what you eat.

      This is not even close to saying that an “alkaline diet” is not healthy. Even though there is no such thing as an alkalizing diet, the so-called “alkaline diet” being promoted is full of nutrient rich foods instead of empty calories.

      Observer: “I sometimes believe that some commentators work for pharmaceutical companies, or just get paid for it. ”

      I am so tired of listening to this bogus paranoid comment being made every time someone discusses some form of quackery in holistic medicine. I just posted this on Markus’ video in response to some other paranoid poster:

      “Just because someone points out some type of quackery in the holistic field this does not mean they are agents of the pharmaceutical companies. That is as stupid of a reasoning as saying that if someone bashes polyester clothing that they must be working for the hemp clothing industry.”

      Observer: “Please provide first evidence that acidic nutrition is Healthy”

      Do you realize that you are made up of amino ACIDS and fatty ACIDS primarily? And that your body is held together with hyaluronic ACID? Or that your cells need citric, malic and pyruvic ACIDS for cellular energy production? Or that carbonic ACID maintains our circulation, protects us from highly alkaline and toxic ammonia, is needed for the production of stomach acid and the production of uric acid, which one of the primary antioxidants for the body? Or that the body uses glucuronic ACID for detoxification?

      I can go on and on and on with my list. The fact is that we cannot survive or even exist without the number of beneficial acids that make us up, allow us to function and keep us healthy.

      Observer: “Fact is that my fish cannot survive in acidic water in my aquarium.”

      You don’t know much about fish do you? Different fish have different pH requirements. Discus for example do need slightly acidic water. And over alkaline water will kill all fish.

      But we are not fish anyway so your comment is irrelevant.

  96. James says

    J,

    If you think Chris is wrong then why don’t you write your own blog article describing what you think is the truth and let us address it rather than simply attacking Chris with vague comments.

    For example, you state “Cellular “acidosis” happens as the blood is regulated by production of bicarbonate & acidity is dumped in the cells from the blood”. Where do you think the acidity comes from? Acidic hydrogen protons are formed routinely WITHIN the cells as the normal part of cellular metabolism. So why would the acid have to be “dumped in to the cells” when the acid is formed in the cells? Secondly, using a little common sense why would the blood be acidic in the first place if the blood is dumping the acids in to cells, which would mean that the acids would no longer be in the blood to be measured?

    J: “or the effects where various pathogens may exist & proliferate”

    Again, if you think anyone is wrong then present your evidence with details. You are guilty of what you are bashing Chris over: “To simplify & not correctly describe the terms shows ignorance on your part. Does not matter how many journals you read if you cannot grasp the details of processes or simply limit them to basic descriptions.”

    Remember that most people don’t have biochemical degrees so make sure you explain it in terms the average person can understand so they can review your statements. Anyone can sound scientific and still not have a clue what they are talking about. For example, not realizing that acidic protons are produced in cells as part of cellular metabolism rather than being dumped in to cells. Or the fact that acidity is primarily controlled by respiration, not bicarbonate.

  97. J says

    Chris, what you wrote about is the tight control of blood acidity which is correctly called “acidemia”. Cellular “acidosis” happens as the blood is regulated by production of bicarbonate & acidity is dumped in the cells from the blood. Of course the blood is heavily regulated, a person can’t live in either extremes. I think you misunderstand the details & what it implies as cellular acidosis saturates or the effects where various pathogens may exist & proliferate. Acid to base chemistry is the foundation of life & many products. In correct understanding it can be utilized in conjunction with other factors to increase health. To simplify & not correctly describe the terms shows ignorance on your part. Does not matter how many journals you read if you cannot grasp the details of processes or simply limit them to basic descriptions. In practice the are parameters & dynamics of all systems that require understand with the various stages & degrees of differences as well as logical conclusions equated with the reality & processes of those degrees. Rigidity to basic nomenclature or semantics without understanding also that individuals can have compromised systems for a variety of reasons & idealized levels & functions are not the same for everyone. You’re entitled to your opinions but as far as I’m concerned they’re irresponsible.

  98. James says

    Daniel,

    Why are you only supplying partial quotes? Here is the full quote from Robert Su, M.D. on June 21, 2013 at 4:53 pm:

    “To question that foods do not affect blood pH, we should question why lemon juice would work well in helping ease gouty arthritis and reduce the serum uric acid level.”

    Clearly you are trying to argue something not said.

    Since you bring it up though did you actually read the study, or just assumed it backed your view based on the title? Let’s take a look at what the study states:

    “The human body has an amazing ability to maintain a steady pH in the blood with the main compensatory mechanisms being renal and respiratory.”

    Just as has been stated over an over. Note that they did not say diet was a primary means of pH regulation.

    “It has been suggested that an alkaline diet may prevent a number of diseases and result in significant health benefits. Looking at the above discussion on bone health alone, certain aspects have doubtful benefit. ”

    “However, a recent systematic review of the literature looking for evidence supporting the alkaline diet for bone health found no protective role of dietary acid load in osteoporosis [31].”

    “Alkaline diets result in a more alkaline urine pH and may result in reduced calcium in the urine, however, as seen in some recent reports, this may not reflect total calcium balance because of other buffers such as phosphate. There is no substantial evidence that this improves bone health or protects from osteoporosis.”

    “At this time, there are limited scientific studies in this area, and many more studies are indicated in regards to muscle effects, growth hormone, and interaction with vitamin D.”

    When they do talk about benefits they talk about the nutrients in the diet such as magnesium, which provide benefits that have nothing to do with pH balance as I stated before:

    James Jan 15, 2014 “This is why there is really no such thing as an alkaline diet. Just a more nutritional diet.”

    So what are these reliable “sources” that show an alkaline diet significantly affects blood pH? Note that sources is plural yet you have not provided even one source backing this claim.

    • Daniel s