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 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.d
Will eating an alkaline diet make you and your bones healthier? #alkalinediet #bonehealth
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.
Like what you’re reading? Get my free newsletter, recipes, eBooks, product recommendations, and more!
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!
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.
James,
knowing about the PH of cancer cells and surrounding area, are there treatment programs for ca based on this?
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
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”.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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!
“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.
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.
(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.
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
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.
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.
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”.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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 ;-).
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.
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.
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.
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: “
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?
“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.
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?
“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.
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.
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.
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
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.
I remember finding one russian vodka study once, there was actually a fair amount of silicic acid in it, which made me wonder if just switching from primarily bottled goods to plastic has made us deficient in silica(of course the alcohol could have had an influence on the amount of silicic acid as a confounding variable).
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)
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Except your body maintains a tight pH. It sounds like some of what is going on is hormone related.
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.]
Hey…
Its the lungs that regulate blood pH!, (remember?)
Those who breath too fast (most of us do these days) breathe out too much CO2 (acid).
This lowers blood pH
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.
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.
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.
Thanks for the nice comment Crystal.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
“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.
where’s the edit button when you need it lol
I meant to say “sighted” not cited.
My bad.
🙂
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! 🙂
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!
“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 🙂
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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.
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.
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.
-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?
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.
Why do Eskimos have such high rates of hip fractures osteoporosis? Eskimos eat lots of animal protein and calcium?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.