In Part 1 of this series, I talked about why the basic premise of the acid-alkaline theory is flawed, and I showed that the evidence doesn’t support the idea that a net acid-forming diet is harmful to bone health. Now I want to look at the effect of dietary acid load on other health conditions.
Can the acidity or alkalinity of your diet affect your risk for muscle loss, cancer, and more?
There is some research claiming that acid-forming diets cause muscle wasting, and the proposed mechanism is similar to that of the acid-ash hypothesis of osteoporosis. Some researchers hypothesize that in order to eliminate excess acid and maintain homeostasis, the kidneys must steal amino acids from muscle tissue. (1, 2) Just as a higher acid load increases calcium in the urine, it also increases nitrogen in the urine, leading some to believe that an acid-forming diet causes net nitrogen loss. However, some of these studies neglect to measure nitrogen balance, so this is not necessarily true. (3, 4) In fact, one study showed that a higher acid diet improved nitrogen balance! (5) This theory also does not acknowledge that protein, although it’s acid forming, actually increases the body’s ability to excrete acid. (6) Finally, the one observational study concluding that alkaline diets improve lean muscle mass didn’t even measure the overall acid load of the diet. (7) Instead, they used potassium intake as an approximate measure, and just assumed that the observed improvement in muscle mass was due to the diet being more alkaline. This, in addition to the limitations that always accompany observational data, makes the evidence less than convincing, especially since the clinical trials have conflicting results.
One of the more popular claims of the alkaline diet is that it can cure cancer. Proponents say that because cancer can only grow in an acidic environment, a net-alkaline diet can prevent cancer cells from growing, and can eliminate existing cancer cells. This theory is incorrect for a few reasons. First of all, the hypothesis depends on the ability of food to substantially change the pH of the blood and extracellular fluid, which I’ve already shown is not the case. (8, 9, 10) Second, cancer is perfectly capable of growing in an alkaline environment. The pH of normal body tissue is 7.4, which is slightly alkaline, and in almost every experiment done with cancer cells, they are grown in an environment at that pH. (11)
Now, cancer cells do tend to grow better in an acidic environment, but the causality is reversed. Once a tumor develops, it creates its own acidic environment through up-regulated glycolysis and reduced circulation, so the pH of the patient’s blood no longer determines the pH of the cancer. (12) It’s not the acidic environment that causes the cancer; it’s the cancer that causes the acidic environment. To top it all off, the only comprehensive review on ‘diet-induced’ acidosis and cancer did not even acknowledge this as a valid mechanism by which an acid-forming diet could increase cancer risk. They discuss a few biological pathways that could potentially link dietary acid load and cancer, but they admit that it’s mostly speculation and there’s no direct link. (13)
There are a few observational studies attempting to link acid-forming diets with hypertension, but the results are mixed. (14, 15) There’s also limited observational data associating higher acid loads with things like high cholesterol, obesity, and insulin resistance, but there are no proposed mechanisms or clinical studies to validate the hypotheses. (16, 17)
There are a few review papers examining the effect of acid-forming diets and health, but as you’ve seen above, the evidence they have to review is sparse. (18, 19, 20, 21, 22) If you read these papers, you’ll notice that whenever they cite trials showing the deleterious effects of acidosis, those trials were done on patients with chronic kidney disease or diabetes-induced acidosis. In the studies done on healthy people, they’re given ammonium chloride to induce acidosis. What you won’t see are clinical trials showing health consequences from purely ‘diet-induced’ acidosis. (Perhaps because ‘diet-induced’ acidosis doesn’t exist!) You’ll also notice that the strongest two hypotheses deal with osteoporosis and muscle wasting, and that links with other diseases are speculative or based on observational data. And although conflicts of interest don’t necessarily mean their conclusion can’t be trusted, it’s interesting to note that one of these reviews was funded by “pH Sciences®,” which “develops and manufactures patent-protected ingredients that safely and effectively manage biological pH levels.” (23)
In sum, I am not convinced that an acid-forming diet has negative effects on healthy people, based on the science. But just to be sure, it’s always a good idea to observe healthy cultures to see if there’s any anthropological evidence to support or refute the hypothesis.
Like what you’re reading? Get my free newsletter, recipes, eBooks, product recommendations, and more!
There are a few studies where researchers attempted to approximate the net acid load of Paleolithic diets. One estimated that 87% of pre-agricultural people ate net-alkaline diets, and proposed this discrepancy with our modern diets as a possible reason for our declining health. (24) However, a more recent study estimated that only half of the world’s hunter-gatherer societies eat net-alkaline diets, while the other half are net acid-forming. (25) They reason that the other estimate is likely accurate for our earlier ancestors, because their tropical habitat would’ve provided ample fruits and vegetables. This idea is confirmed by another analysis that showed increasing acid load with increasing latitude. (26) Even without the study, it stands to reason that as humans moved into less hospitable environments, the animal content (and acid load) of their diet increased.
Given the subpar clinical science on this topic, I think the evolutionary argument is far more convincing. If half of the world’s hunter-gatherer populations avoid the ‘diseases of civilization’ on an acid-forming diet, it would seem that acid load has little to no bearing on overall health. For some case studies, we can always look to Weston Price’s work to see quite clearly that acid-forming diets are not detrimental to health. Based on Price’s descriptions, many of the traditional diets he studied would have been primarily acid-forming, including the Swiss, the Masai, and the Inuit. Yet despite their high intake of animal foods or grains and their comparatively low intake of fruits and vegetables, they maintained excellent health.
I don’t deny that many people have seen significant health improvements when switching to an alkaline diet, but there are many possible reasons for this not having to do with pH balance. Eating more fresh produce is rarely a bad idea, especially when it displaces nutrient poor processed foods. A person switching to an alkaline diet would significantly reduce their consumption of grains, which could cause dramatic health improvements for somebody with a leaky gut or gluten sensitivity. Dairy would also be minimized, which would help those with dairy sensitivities. And although pure sugar isn’t an acid-forming nutrient, many laypeople claim that it is, so alkaline diets tend to contain far less sugar than a standard Western diet.
Between the scientific evidence (or lack thereof) and the anthropological research, I think we can be confident that the acid load of our diets doesn’t negatively impact healthy people. For those with renal failure or similar conditions that affect kidney function, it’s a different story—there’s certainly room for manipulation of urine pH in the treatment of those conditions. But for someone with functioning kidneys, there should be no concern that an acid-forming diet will harm health.
Better supplementation. Fewer supplements.
Close the nutrient gap to feel and perform your best.
A daily stack of supplements designed to meet your most critical needs.
Hi Julie….I am sorry for your negative experience…..please consider the latest findings re: digestion…it only really occurs in the mouth through mastication …as the food enters the stomach large amounts of Sodium Bicarbonate are produced to alkalize the food you have eaten….HCL is a by-product of the production of Sodium Bicarbonate and gets resorbed and eliminated. NaCl + H2O + Co2=NaHCO3 + HCL….as you can see the HCL is a waste product rather than something needed for digestion. Any access of alkalinity is being eliminated via urination …so the body will not allow alkalosis unless there is a failure in the elimination via urine. Becoming alkaline the body sheds fatty tissue which it used previously to store toxins and acidity.
Once again, HCL is not a waste product but rather an essential component to our body:
I tried drinking alkaline water and eating alkaline foods only to learn that it was shutting down my digestion. I lost way to much weight and was sick from it. I learned that we need to have adequate stomach acid to digest food and that you can harm your health by becoming overly alkaline. It was a hard lesson learned.
I agree. I only drink my alkaline water on an empty stomach between meals, and then with meals I take HCl. It works great.
I have spasmodic dysphonia, a spasming of the vocal cords and some people say that lowering acid can help this condition? Do you know anything about this and/or do you have any recommendations? Thank you!
Have you tried supplementing with magnesium malate? Magnesium relaxes muscles preventing spasms by antagonizing calcium. Therefore, don’t take it with calcium and watch your calcium intake. If your serum calcium is high this can also aggravate this kind of condition.
Here’s a video (30Sep2013) from NutritionFacts.org citing recent articles (2011 & 2012) that show that the calcium in urine that occurs after eating a highly acidic protein meal is NOT from the bones, but due to improved calcium absorption from the diet. The (acidic) dietary protein helps to improve calcium absorption, the excess of which gets urinated out.
Of course, just about everyone can benefit from eating more vegetables, I don’t think one can really dispute that.
One can always find the truth, if one perseveres…. but be very careful….
“NutritionFacts.org” sounds great, very impressive, great title, and really presents the idea that this website is the ultimate, up-to-the-minute, most factual nutritional information out there… except for one “minor” detail, Dr. Greger is a staunch vegan on a mission, and is VERY good at presenting “information” with a hidden bias…. this does not mean that there ISN’T accurate information to be found there, just watch your back !!! LOL….
A wonderful article. It is always regrettable to deal with two handed Clinical experts in that they usually say you can do this or that. Better to deal with one-handed clinicians so that the take home message is clear and reader not left in confusion.
I have diabetes 2 and feel taking Honey in moderation – 3-4 tea spoons a day may not affect diabetic glucose values. Is it correct?
V S Mani
V S Mani,
It would depend on how quickly you consume it, how sensitive to honey your body is (how reactive you are. “diabetically speaking”), and what you eat with it… there is a rather large bell curve in “diabetes”…
It also depends on the *honey* itself, not all honey is equal! It depends on how it is processed, what kind of bees, what did the bees harvest from, etc.
As mister paleo said, it also depends how “reactive” you are, some people can handle it better than others. It is also hard to give advice without knowing anything about your diet. But it is certain that it will affect your glucose values.
If i were you, i’d moderate using so much honey (3-4 tea spoons every day sounds like alot to me), I would eat any product with a relatively high GI as honey with moderation. But this also depends on your general diet, if you haven’t already, read up on Glycemic Load (GL), it helped me alot when i tried to eat healthier and get rid of excess fat 🙂
It can be a chore to map the GL values of your foods (especially if the information on the label is lacking), but i think it is worth it 🙂
I’m sure that if you work about on your diet and take GL into consideration that you will be able to incorporate some honey into your diet 😀
What also worked wonders for me was to reduce all intake of carbohydrates (starch, etc), which means reducing intake of pasta, potatoes, etc while still eating more vegetables (note: not a “low-carb” diet, more like a “carb-reduction” diet). What also helped me regulate my diet was exercising daily (20-40 minutes of medium level activity that got your back sweaty ever day, i did it by speed walking home from work).
Hope I gave you some tips, if you already know all this I apologize for wasting your time :p
It sounds like what you are saying, Chris, is that it doesn’t much matter what I eat relative to my body pH, and that the body’s pH will be maintained within a small acceptable range by the kidneys, never mind what I eat… that my health is not related to my body’s pH.
What about this. Processed foods which are full of chemicals tend to be more acidic than natural organic foods. Because of all the toxins and inorganic components causing it to be an acidic, I assume in my opinion this would provide no health benefits in preventing illness (quite the opposite). Or are you saying that acid forming foods such a meats, fish, nuts, seeds, etc which were in the paleolithic diets that are closer to from the earth and natural and don’t increase sickness?
I am always interested in research, and you’ve quoted a bunch of it in your article on alkalizing.
However, I disagree with the thrust of some of what you said, namely your caviler attitude regarding the body’s ability to adapt to our current diets.
I do not make my living from this, so I don’t have 100 hours to spend looking up research papers to support me; so I’m just going to wing it from memory.
A hundred years ago, cancer was a rare disease. Now, it’s epidemic.
In the last 30 years, macular degeneration has increased 10 TIMES.
The rate of diabetes has risen enormously.
As far as I can tell, from an enormous amount of reading, it seems to be primarily due to changes in our diets. So, SOMETHING different, or, MANY somethings different, about our diets, compared to even our recent ancestors, is causing a vast increase in a number of diseases that used to be rare (longer lifespan has been factored into this already).
My belief is that changes in our diet, are overwhelming our body’s long term ability to function properly.
2 centuries ago, the average yearly consumption of sugar was maybe a pound a year. Now it’s over a HUNDRED pounds a year! This is a phenomenal dietary change! Diabetes has skyrocketed.
Don’t you think there’s a connection?
I think that the pancreas is being absolutely overwhelmed by the enormous amount of sugar that IT WAS NOT DESIGNED to handle. Yes, maybe it can take it for a while, but eventually it just can’t handle the enormous amounts of sugar anymore.
While you quote research saying that some primitive people had a “net” acid diet, just what does that MEAN exactly? Just a touch under alkaline, or much, much more, like today’s diets? You did not make that clear.
If our diets are substantially more acid than our ancestors (even recent ancestors), then maybe the same thing is happening here, as is happening with sugar, namely, our body’s ability to handle the enormous amounts of acid, over time, takes it’s toll on our organs.
I COMPLETELY disagree with your thinking that our kidneys can just take this assault indefinitely without problem.
Also, the liver/bile ducts/gallbladder, and pancreas, also handle bicarbonate in addition to the kidneys. You will notice that the pancreas is getting a DOUBLE assault, having to handle both a high sugar AND a high acid load. Diabetes is skyrocketing.
Don’t you think there’s a connection?
The body is NOT just an infinitely adapting machine that you can continue to assault for decades in manners that it was NOT designed to handle, without parts of it failing!
I ALSO disagree with your caviler statement about the body’s regulation of blood pH. “…tightly regulates…”, you said. I’ve seen this phase over the internet SO many times, I’m sick of it. Someone says, “tightly regulates”, as if it’s a statement from God, and just goes on with no further examination, as if their conjecture were proven. I disagree.
This comes from incorrect thinking about HOW much the pH has to change, to create problems. In terms of blood pH, just TINY changes
in the blood pH, can make very large differences in the oxygen carrying capacity of the blood. Changes that most doctors would not think about twice, as it would be in the “normal” range. An over acid diet causes an inability of hemoglobin to carry the oxygen that it could.
You don’t think that this is important?
Another thing, caries (cavities), are rampant now. Two centuries ago, this was NOT the case. Even a century ago, the amount of enamel on teeth was DOUBLE what it is today! Yes, DOUBLE. A number of research studies that I have read, show that alkaline conditions in the mouth, stop much of the bacterial assault on the teeth. Most people’s mouths are quite acidic. To change this, you have to change your diet to more alkaline. YES, the blood pH will only change slightly, BUT, the saliva pH will change dramatically; when the body stops dumping so much acid to keep the blood pH stable.
You again dismissed, without much discussion, pH testing. Yes, urine testing is all over the place, based on what you’ve eaten recently. HOWEVER, saliva testing, done first thing in the morning, right after getting up and BEFORE drinking or eating or brushing your teeth, is quite stable, and a good indicator of the state of your acid/alkaline balance.
I’ve brought my morning saliva pH up from 6.4 to 7.0, and, just as the research indicated, most of my bad oral bacteria simply died off. Even this result alone would seem to indicate a better functioning body. Urine pH isn’t too bad a guide, if taken first thing in the morning just after getting up. Saliva pH testing is still probably better, though.
I mean, this isn’t that complex. If your blood pH is slightly alkaline at 7.368, give or take, if you can get close to that in your saliva pH reading, you are probably not overloading your body one way or the other with either acids OR alkalines.
My 2¢ worth.
Hi Karl….Great thoughts and I agree with most of what you are saying….regarding your saliva pH …this reading only tells you how much alkalizing POTENTIAL you have whereas the urine tells you your tissue pH….so if your saliva pH is low…below 7…than your ability to alkalize acidic food is compromised.
I’ve been researching and writing on the benefits of alkaline foods for a few years now. I respectively disagree with the notion that an acidic diet doesn’t harm bone health. Here’s an excerpt from an article that I wrote on this topic:
Calcium is a strong base (alkaline substance) and bone contains the largest calcium stores in the body. When the body enters an acidotic state, osteoblastic (bone forming) activity decreases and osteoclastic (bone destroying) activity increases. In fact, bone destruction has been shown to increase six-fold with a decrease in pH from 7.25 to 7.15. Once CMA (chronic metabolic) acidosis initiates breakdown, other factors perpetuate the process, such as parathyroid hormone, vitamin D, ATP, and ADP. At a pH of 6.9, mineralization by osteoblasts is completed inhibited. This occurs due to increased solubility of bone, and inhibition of alkaline phosphatase, an enzyme required for mineralization. It must be noted that these changes in osteoblastic function occur at the DNA level, which may explain why there is a lag in the normalization of function after alkalizing measures have been taken.
Another mechanism by which metabolic acidosis causes resorption is the stimulation of prostaglandin E (pgE). In response to a reduction in pH, pgE stimulates the production of osteoclasts, and thus promotes osteoclastic activity. Recall, osteoclasts break down bone.
Little or no resorption takes places at a pH of 7.4. Why does this happen? As is outlined The Kick Acid Diet, acidosis is a condition that must be prevented and corrected at all costs. Stimulation of osteoclastic activity is a “fail-safe” mechanism ensuring adequate alkaline release into the blood via bone demineralization when the kidneys and lungs are unable to remove hydrogen ions.
Other experts claim that physico-chemical resorption occurs more often than the cell-mediated process described above. If respiratory buffering at the lungs can no longer handle excess acids, the body will call upon another potent buffer – calcium. And since bone is the largest reservoir of this mineral, calcium will be leached from the bone. The process known as demineralization buffers these acids. A reduction in bicarbonate (one of your body’s natural buffers) concentration results in increased calcium release from bone to buffer the acidosis. This process is mediated by calcium carbonate and calcium apatite, two storage forms of calcium.
Not only does acidity result in the loss of calcium from the bone, it also results in the loss of sodium and potassium.
The differing contributions of cell-mediated and physico-chemical bone destruction may be attributed to the severity and duration of the acidosis. The cell-mediated process occurs in acute metabolic acidosis, whilst both processes occur in chronic metabolic acidosis.
This effect is even more pronounced in post-menopausal women. There is a direct relationship between net acid excretion (in the urine) and bone resorption during this period of a women’s life. Diet does, in fact, play an important role in the contribution of chronic, long-term, low-grade metabolic acidosis over a lifetime. However, it probably goes undetected (as it is within normal limits), but will have a chronic effect on bone health.
If buffering at the lungs fail and the calcium from the bones is no longer an adequate supply, the body will then turn to its next largest supply of calcium, skeletal muscle.
Interestingly, it is only metabolic acidosis that results in calcium loss from bone, not respiratory acidosis. In fact, respiratory acidosis promotes calcium deposition in bone. The detailed explanation is beyond the scope of this article.
As described above, calcium is not the only mineral stored in bone, and therefore, is not the only osseous mineral affected by metabolic acidosis. Magnesium, sodium, potassium, and zinc are lost from bone in the obligatory buffering of metabolic acids.
To summarize, bone contains substantial amounts of buffering alkalizing minerals, such as sodium, potassium, magnesium, and calcium. These minerals are rapidly available for exchange with the fluid outside of bone. Potassium and sodium are the body’s first line of defense in preventing metabolic acidosis. Once these reserves are depleted, the body calls upon its calcium and magnesium stores.
Let’s now specifically address how dietary protein, acidity, and bone loss are related. It has been postulated by many that high protein diets do increase one’s risk of bone breakdown (also known as resorption) due to the formation of the chemicals ammonium and sulphate. Ammonium and sulphate are both acidic. As a result of this acid formation, citrate and carbonate attached to calcium are leeched from the bone to buffer.
However, long-term dietary protein intake acts anabolically on various parts of the bone, most notably the shaft, or diaphysis. This results in increased bone strength. Interestingly, this bone forming property of protein has been shown to occur only in animal proteins, and in the presence of alkalizing minerals. Another way of putting this is, animal proteins are beneficial for bone health only if the PRAL overall of the diet is alkaline. In fact, low protein intake may be detrimental to bone health.
1. Kiberistis P, et al: Bone health in the balance. Science 289:1497, 2000.
2. Dacy P, et al: The osteoblast: a sophisticated fibroblast under central surveillance. Science 289:1501-1504, 2000.
3. Teitelbaum S: Bone resorption by osteoclasts. Science 289:1505-1508, 2000.
4. Wachman A, et al: Diet and osteoporosis. The Lancet 1:958-959, 1968.
5. Lemann J Jr, Lennon EJ: Role of diet, gastrointestinal tract, and bone in acid-base homeostasis. Kidney Int 1:275-279, 1972.
6. Barzel US, Massey LK: Excess dietary protein can adversely affect bone. J Nutr 128:1051-1053, 1998.
7. Anand C, Linkswiler H: Effect of protein intake on calcium balance of young men given 500mg of calcium daily. J Nutr 104:695-700, 1974.
8. Chu J, et al: Studies in calcium metabolism II. Effects of low calcium and variable protein intake on human calcium metabolism. Am J Clin Nutr 28:1028-1035, 1975.
9. Johnson NE, et al: Effect of protein intake on urinary and fecal calcium and calcium retention of young adult males. J Nutr 100:1425-1430, 1970.
10. Margen S, et al: The calciuretic effect of dietary protein. Am J Clin Nutr 27:548-588, 1974.
11. Schwartz R, et al: Effect of magnesium and protein level on calcium balance. Am J Clin Nutr 26:519-523, 1973.
12. Walker RM, Linkswiler HM: Calcium retention in the adult human male as affected by protein intake. J Nutr 102:1297-1302, 1972.
13. Heaney RP, Recker RR: Effects of nitrogen, phosphorus, and caffeine on calcium balance in women. J Lab Clin Med 99:46-55, 1982.
14. Bushinsky DA: Metabolic alkalosis decreases bone calcium efflux by suppressing osteoclasts and stimulating osteoblasts. Am J Physiol 271:F216-F22, 1996.
15. Heaney RP: Excess dietary protein may not adversely affect bone. J Nutr. 128:1054-1057, 1998.
16. Kleinman JG, Lemann J Jr: Acid production. In: Maxwell MH, et al (eds): Clinical Disorders of Fluid and Electrolyte Metabolism, 4th Edition. New York: McGraw Hill, 1987, pp. 159-173.
17. Green J, Kleeman CR: The role of bone in the regulation of systemic acid base balance. Contrib Nephrol 91:61-76, 1991.
18. Remer T, Manz F: Estimation of the renal net acid excretion by adults consuming diets containing variable amounts of protein. Am J Clin Nutr 59:1356-1361, 1994.
19. Frassetto L, Sebastian A: Age and systemic acid-base equilibrium: analysis of published data. J Gerontol 51:B91-B99, 1996.
20. Lennon EJ, et al: The effect of diet and stool composition on the net external acid balance of normal subjects. J Clin Invest 45:1601-1607, 1966.
21. Kurtz I, et al: Effect of diet on plasma acid-base composition in normal humans. Kidney Int 24:670-680, 1983.
22. Schwarz WB, Relman AS: A critique of the parameters used in the evaluation of acid-base disorders. New Engl J Med 268:1382, 1963.
23. Szent-Gyrogy A: Quantum Biochemistry. New York: Blackwell, 1957.
24. Jaffe R: Autoimmunity: clinical relevance of biological response modifiers in diagnosis, treatment, and testing. Int J Integr Med 2(2):7-14, March/April 2000.
25. Sebastian A: Improved mineral balance and skeletal metabolism in post-menopausal women treated with potassium bicarbonate. N Engl J Med 330:1776-1781, 1994.
26. Frassetto L, et al: Potassium bicarbonate reduces urinary nitrogen excretion in postmenopausal women. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 82:254-259, 1997.
27. Halperin ML, Goldstein MB: Fluid, Electrolyte, and Acid-Base Physiology: A Problem-Based Approach, 3rd Edition. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Company, 1999.
28. 40. Cohn SH, et al: Body elemental composition: comparison between black and white adults. Am J Physiol 232:E419-E422, 1977.
29. 41. Armstrong WD, Singer L: Composition and constitution of the mineral phase of bone. Clin Orthop 38:179-190, 1965.
30. 42. Flynn MA, et al: Total body potassium in aging humans: a longitudinal study. Am J Clin Nutr 50:713-717, 1989.
31. 43. Poyart CF, et al: The bone CO2 compartment: evidence for a bicarbonate pool. Respir Physiol 25:89-99, 1975.
32. Vatassery GT, et al: Determination of hydroxyl content of calcified tissue mineral. Calcif Tissue Res 5:183-188, 1970.
33. 46. Triffitt JT, et al: A comparative study of the exchange in vivo of major constituents of bone mineral. Calcif Tissue Res 2:165-176, 1968.
34. 54. Schweitzer C, et al: Dietary intake of carotenoids, fruits, and vegetables in the US: CSFII 1994-1996, a national survey. Proceedings from the 12th International Carotenoid Symposium, July 18-23, 1999, Cairns, Australia.
35. 55. Krebs-Smith SM, et al: Fruit and vegetable intakes of children and adolescents in the United States. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 150:81-86, 1996.
36. 56. Breslau NA, et al: Relationship of animal protein-rich diet to kidney stone formation and calcium metabolism. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 66:140-146,1988.
37. 57. Licata AA, et al: Acute effects of dietary protein on calcium metabolism in patients with osteoporosis. J Gerontol 36:14-19, 1981.
38. 59. Beyene Y: Cultural significance and physiological manifestation of menopause: a biocultural analysis. Cult Med Psychiatry 10:47-71, 1986.
39. 60. Luyken R, Luyken-Koning R: Studies on the physiology of nutrition in Surinam VIII. Metabolism of calcium. Trop Geogr Med 13:46-54, 1961.
40. 61. Chalmers J, Ho K: Geographical variations in senile osteoporosis. J Bone and Joint Surgery 52B:667-675, 1970.
41. 63. Melton L, Riggs B: Epidemiology of age-related fractures. In: The Osteoporotic Syndrome: Detection, Prevention and Treatment. New York: Grune and Stratton, 1983.
42. 64. Krieger NS, et al: Acidosis inhibits osteoblastic and stimulates osteoclastic activity in vitro. Am J Physiol 31:F442-F448, 1992.
43. 65. Arnett TR, Spowage M: Modulation of the resorptive activity of rat osteoclasts by small changes in extracellular pH near the physiological range. Bone 18:277-279, 1996.
44. 66. Arnett TR, Dempster DW: Effect of pH on bone resorption by rat osteoclasts in vitro. Endocrinology 119:119-124, 1986.
45. 67. Grinspoon SK, et al: Decreased bone formation and increased mineral dissolution during acute fasting in young women. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 80:3628-3633, 1995.
46. 68. Marsh A, et al: Cortical bone density of adult lactovegetarian women and omnivorous women. J Amer Diet Assoc 76:148-151, 1980.
One of the biggest flaws in your hypothesis is the fact that acidosis is extremely rare to begin with. This is because the body has numerous redundant systems to maintain its proper pH since both acidosis and alkalosis can be deadly. Demineralization of bone is only use by the body as a last ditch effort in cases of severe acidosis, which again is super rare.
By the way, osteoclasts generate their own acid to break down bone for bone remodeling, which is essential for healthy bones.
The main reason for bone loss depends on the disease.
Osteoporosis for example has absolutely nothing to do with pH. Osteopososis is not a loss of bone minerals, but rather a loss of collagen matrix. Without sufficient collagen matrix there is not enough surface area for minerals to bind and therefore there is a loss of bone density. The most common reason for osteoporosis is a lack of stomach acid, which leads to a decline in silica absorption as orthosilicic acid (OA). OA is not only essential for collagen formation, but the silica in OA also aids in calcium absorption and is what actually causes bone mineralization.
Osteopenia and osteoporosis are the result of mineral loss from bones. The main reasons for these two conditions are hyperparathyroidism and pseudohyperparathyroidism. The first is caused from benign parathyroid tumors, which are believed to occur from a lack of vitamin D. Pseudohyperparathyroidism results from the over consumption of phosphorus. In both cases the parathyroid glands release excess parathyroid hormone, which breaks bone down to increase serum calcium.
Thank you Alwyn for your contribution….it seems we are on the same page.
James, I do appreciate your statements and a lot of it makes sense…at the same time I must admit most of my research is based on my clients experiences and as such more valid to me than any research based on theory and old school knowledge. And I do not disagree with everything you say…there are many valid points. And also thank you for taking the time to reply!!!!
Ignoring research is just plain stupid. Would you want someone with absolutely no medical background operating on you or even giving you medical advice? I hope not. It is very important that if someone is giving medical advice and especially if working with clients in a medical capacity that they have a good solid understanding of how the body really works. You do not obtain that knowledge by guessing, such as guessing stomach acid (HCl) is a waste product. We learn this information by reading what has been found in medical research so we get facts instead such as HCl is not only essential for digestion, but also for destroying ingested pathogens, to allow for the proper absorption of certain vitamins, to aid in the absorption of minerals, etc.
As another example, as we have seen your claim that digestion only occurs in the mouth is also incorrect. Enzymes responsible for digestion are released in the mouth, stomach and intestines. If you read actual medical studies verifying these facts then you would have known that your hypothesis that digestion only occurs in the mouth was wrong.
Again, we cannot be guessing on how the body works if giving medical advice, and especially when we have clients we work with on a medical basis.
It could be that better supply of nutrients from consuming more of certain foods could explain various health improvements such as more fruits and veg providing more potassium and magnesium rather than because of changes in ph. Magnesium and potassium are important in the function of the pumps in the cell and mitochondrial function.
Sure, the Swiss, Inuit and Masai diet is high in animal food and grains and low in fruits and vege, but the comparison to other diets should be complete and well-rounded before a conclusion drawn. I doubt their diet is also high in McDonalds, Krispy Kreme and other processed foods that are not so much an occasional indulgence in our diets but a frequent enough attack on our systems. Eating animal foods, which tend to be more acidic, may not be the issue. Our digestive systems can cope with fresh, wholesome, unprocessed food. And the body is a smart sensor, it recognizes when unnatural molecules are invading it. It goes into protection mode. Unfortunately, the modern diet (overprocessed food being the main culprit) is bombarding our systems in a way that leaves the body no time or ability to heal or repair. It is like trying to defend against a constant shelling by 21st century artillery with medieval bows-and-arrows and shields.
The alkaline diet may seem a weak proposition because acid-forming diets, as you conclude, may not be an issue for already healthy people. Trouble is, how many of us are? So the arguments you have against the alkaline theory may be valid, but the premise of the arguments is not. In all fairness, your conclusion wraps up what should be the thrust of your article – that alkalising the over-acidic diet of an unhealthy person could see a lot of benefits.
Homeostasis is part and parcel of all things living. The theory of balance should still hold true, no matter what kind of medicine one practises. Nature is rife with examples of an inherent need for balance.
This link has a good summary of studies on sodium bicarbonate (baking soda)
I was wondering if you could get to the bottom of this baking soda thing. It seems to have miracle properties for stain and odor removal. Some say it’s a powerful antifungal. Some say it can improve athletic performance, reduce muscle cramps, cure cancer, alkalize the body, prevent a hangover, and dissolve kidney stones. I wonder if these are all connected somehow? Could it be an essential nutrient or something we are missing?
Use xylitol instead of stevia… make sure it is USA “birch-bark” derived.
Why? Stevia has a 0 glycemic index and doesn’t add to a sugar addiction, unlike xylitol.
Between xylitol and sugar, sure, I’d take xylitol every time since it is lower glycemic and almost all sugars are processed.
Because he commented on the taste of Stevia… xylitol is a better choice than the other sweeteners he mentioned.
It depends a lot on the grade of stevia. Some of the liquids are really nasty. And the green powder can also have a bitter aftertaste if to much of the stem is left in the product. The stem has a bitter alkaloid that gives the aftertaste. The extracts though vary from lower grades such as 70-80% stevioside all the way up to 95-99% stevioside. The higher grades do not have that aftertaste. For that matter neither does the 80% extract I often use.
But stevia is not cheap and manufacturers often want to go with the cheaper grades and count on the public’s ignorance of the differences in grades. Only a few companies use grades from 95-99% stevioside. And these products are almost always cut on top of that as flow agents. I have seen all sorts of things used as flow agents including FOS, erythritol, lactose, maltodextrin and even xylitol. The flow agents used can also affect the taste of the product.
stevia tastes disgusting, I like liquerice but not as a sweetener
Personally, I think going off sugar and gluten/wheat does more for health than all the other theories combined. Even when I make my berry based smoothies I use stevia and a little pinch of salt to boost the flavor. Using stevia instead of sugar has made a huge difference in my health, but I would like to get to a point where I can use a small amount of molasses or honey and add stevia to the balance for taste. Eating a low glycemic diet has more to do with health management than this silly PH nonsense.
Where is part 1 of this article?
It’s linked in the first sentence of this article 🙂
Blood pH is maintained at a very thin margin between 7.45-7.35. It is in the MAINTENANCE that calcium is taken from the bones to buffer the acid-ash created by a higher-than-necessary protein diet. This is the BIG misunderstanding between the two camps. Blood pH, cannot fluctuate beyond those parameters without major physiological reprucussions.
I have just started the alkaline diet and have read several books on the subject but nowhere have I read that this diet can change the blood ph. Furthermore the literature I have looked at does not state that calcium from the bones is taken in an acid diet but that that which is taken in with food is not absorbed.
I can’t see how the conclusion is not contradicting itself. Not denying more vegetables is a good thing is like the opposite of saying the acid forming diet is just fine for healthy people. There is nothing wrong with feeling healthy eating what you want, until eating what you want is making you feel unhealthy. Being 56 and having to deal with that, and overcome ill feeling by turning to a more alkaline rich approache to diet, I can say I notice the general demise of others around age 50. So the conclusion would seem sound to me up to age 50 give or take. At that point forward, continuation of the acid life style puts you in the cross hairs of the pharmacuetiical industry. Granted, eating a more alkalizing rich diet is a hard pill to swallow. Like my Doc bellowed at me at age 50, Just take this one stinking little pill and stop trying to help yourself with all that fiber. he was referring to statin lipitor that lowered my cholesterol into spec, but made my health grow worse. So the heck with that crap, I would learn to blend avocados with spinach and alkalizing whey protein and feel and look like a new younger person. So everyone who can’t swallow the pill can fall in line with the rest of the old farts at the Prescription counter. I will keep filling the blender and juicer and enjoy being out with people half my age and wearing their clothes.
It has been said by. Chris, I believe , and many othets that digestive enzymes decrease as we get older. So it would make sense, that any diet that would support digestion over the age of 50 would be beneficial. I don’t think this artical denys that in ant way.
As long as you are eating a well balanced diet, plenty of fruit, veg, meat and dairy and of course healthy fats( like nuts), you need not worry too much. With regular exercise you will be fit as fiddle. So enjoy eating healthy and don’t over analysis your diet!