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.
From my personal life, during the visit to my parents I eat fresh fruits, fresh fish from the sea (organic natural one) and get enough sunlight, and in around 2 weeks my metabolism gets well and I get fit and feel healthy. And when I am back to our urban lifestyle with its cuisine I feel older around 5 years immediately. I never seek what is alkali or what is acidic but recently I realized I dislike cola or any other synthetic drinks when I am on healthy cycle. Just a note…
Giving up hope on James or other James and Bean and Robin, I have refered to an MD on the subject who is an expert on body physiology and what he says:
“Blood pH can go as low as 6.7 which was observed on diabetes II patients on metformin medication. So theoretically, any cronic exposure of EM forcing its way with voltage change and in turn a pH change (as Dr. Tennant claims) may decrease the blood pH. The balancing function of lungs and kidneys will not work perfect for a cronic exposure for long durations. Eventually, pH drop will be observed. ”
Similarly EM exposure during night time suppresses the melatonin secretion. The only problem for me left is to find people working in high EM power density areas for a long time versus a control group which does not.
As a bottomline, one may deduce from that expert’s opinion, your diet will surely effect your overall blood pH one day eventually if you are on a low pH diet for an extended period.
Anyway, I still welcome any opinion for my thesis. I need POV. That is what one cannot artificially generate by himself more than a few ones still biased with one and the only.
Korkut: “Giving up hope on James or other James and Bean and Robin”
Hi Korkut, I did not give any response because I have never seen any scientific evidence backing any of this. A lot of what is being claimed is all hypothetical, not theoretical. So there is a lot of assuming going on without any real solid evidence. Look at your own statement later in your post:
“So theoretically, any cronic exposure of EM forcing its way with voltage change and in turn a pH change (as Dr. Tennant claims) may decrease the blood pH. ”
Note the words “claims” and “may”. Again these are not words of proven fact. Claims without evidence is still a hypothesis, not a theory. And “may” is assumptive, not proven factual.
Here is another part of your post:
“The balancing function of lungs and kidneys will not work perfect for a cronic exposure for long durations. Eventually, pH drop will be observed. ”
If this is the case then why is acidosis such an EXTREMELY rare condition?
That statement is also putting the cart before the horse. To really start providing any type of evidence to that claim the researcher has to first prove that long term acidosis occurs to begin with before claiming the hypothesis that this decreases lung and kidney function. Then he would have to prove that this chronic acidosis really decreased lung and kidney function, then finally that this leads to a drop in pH to make it a theory. But how would he prove their is a drop in pH from decreased lung and kidney function when he is already claiming that the pH was low to begin with? And if you go very low, which really is a small drop, the person would be dead. Again, there is a lot of assumptions being made but I have not seen any solid evidence backing any of Dr. Tennant’s claims.
Korkut:”Similarly EM exposure during night time suppresses the melatonin secretion.”
Again, is there is any solid evidence in medical research verifying this claim?
Korkut: “As a bottomline, one may deduce from that expert’s opinion, your diet will surely effect your overall blood pH one day eventually if you are on a low pH diet for an extended period.”
Making deductions from hypotheses gets us nowhere. Evidence needs to be produced to even elevate the hypotheses to the level of a theory.
For example, a person can form a hypothesis that a big meteor will strike the Earth next week. People can deduce from this unproven hypothesis that they need to be prepared for this supposed meteor. When it does not happen though the person making the hypothesis is made out to sound like a quack because most people have no idea what a hypothesis is and the people who took the hypothesis as a fact end up looking foolish. This is why we should not focus on hypotheses as sources of “evidence” because hypotheses lack real evidence to begin with.
Real evidence has proven that diet has virtually no influence on blood pH. The only way anything ingested could potentially alkalize the blood directly is if the ingested substance was strong enough and was taken in sufficiently high enough levels to dangerously overwhelm the body’s pH buffering systems.
Thanks for responding James.
About the melatonin effects here is one example:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23051584?dopt=Abstract
More you can find on http://www.emf-portal.de
About the blood pH issue I dont want to chase shadows so trying to find effects of EM (electromagnetic) thru blood pH (since we cannot directly measure cellular level pH (for we could not even measure cellular voltage)) is terribly hard and finding diabetes type II patients (like using genetically modified rats for research) on metformine medication would be like next to impossible in statistically large numbers.
“Healing is voltage” issue from Dr. Tennant could be right and even in that case it has no tangible use for me. If it is wrong than the whole issue will be down the drain.
That is the reason I wanted to get different point of views.
As you can see, I am not an expert on any of these and I just need some guidance not to enter a deadlock thesis at least from the very beginning.
{A good opening is the key to winning in Chess.}
That is the sole reason I wrote. So if you say, seeking acidosis in order to prove some effects of EM would be lunatic, I take your advise. I am yet sane.
And if you have another proposal such an endocrine marker which is sensitive to EM or indirect effects of EM such as heat, you are very welcome.
Korkut: “About the melatonin effects here is one example:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23051584?dopt=Abstract”
Interesting hypothesis, bu the study was not conclusive to anything. In fact they say that the results are inconclusive, so much more research needs to be done to prove one way or the other. This is from the link:
“The results show that this comparison does not seem to be consistent despite the fact that it offers an advantage of drawing attention to the importance of the exposure limits to weak EMFs. In addition to those inconsistent results, the following were also observedfrom this work: (i) the ICNIRP recommendations are meant for the well-known acute effects, because effects of the exposure duration cannot be considered and (ii) the significance of not replicating the existing experimental studies is another limitation in the power-frequency EMFs.”
Korkut: “About the blood pH issue I dont want to chase shadows so trying to find effects of EM (electromagnetic) thru blood pH (since we cannot directly measure cellular level pH”
Cellular pH can be measured and has been measured using microprobes. This is how they found out that the pH of cancer cells was more alkaline than that of healthy cells.
Korkut: ““Healing is voltage” issue from Dr. Tennant could be right and even in that case it has no tangible use for me. I”
I always saw it as voltage is healing. The body is electric and electricity is known to heal. For instance, it has been known for a long time that minute electrical currents can speed the healing of fractures. In fact, bone generates its own electricity to mineralize the collagen matrix. The ancient Greeks employed the electricity from electric rays and eels to heal. As little as one volt of electricity has been shown to destroy viruses. And even I used electricity to help grow back the end of my thumb after I cut it off in a table saw accident. So electricity can be healing.
Korkut: “That is the sole reason I wrote. So if you say, seeking acidosis in order to prove some effects of EM would be lunatic, I take your advise. I am yet sane.”
I never said anything about being lunatical. Again the evidence is lacking either way as to the effects of EMF on the body so I have no real opinion either way.
dear korkut,
sry for not replying, i didnt know the question was directed to me as well.
i am not a doctor or any profession related to it so i dont know. Most of the comments i made with james are based on internet researches. Thats how i found out his lots of his claims are not backed by scientific studies either. and most of the times he is just trying to win an argument.
Chris you said above: “In other words, regardless of what you eat or what your urine pH is, you can be pretty confident that your blood pH is hovering around a comfortable 7.4”
So what does the urinalysis pH mean? Is there such a test as a blood pH test? I’ve got health records showing my fasting urinalysis pH was 5 in 1992, 5 in 2000, 7 in 2003, and 5 in 2014. I’ve always been a meat eater and don’t eat enough vegetables, but healthy at 64. It’s nice to know I don’t have to worry about my urine pH.
Hi Michele,
I can answer that for you. Urinary pH does not reflect blood pH whatsoever. Urinary pH varies quite a bit more than blood pH naturally and can be influenced quite a bit by a variety of things. For example, dehydration can lower pH. Urinary tract infections can make urine very alkaline as bacteria use the enzyme urease to split urea to form highly alkaline ammonia to help the bacteria survive. In fact, most pathogens thrive in an alkaline environment contrary to all the alkalizing propaganda.
Urinalysis is not a singular tests but can comprise a number of different tests such as testing for blood, glucose, ketones, pH, nitrate, sodium, calcium, white blood cells, etc. These tests can help with the diagnosis of numerous diseases and conditions.
Some people also try to determine their blood pH through salivary pH testing. Again, this in no way reflects blood pH and there are various factors that can affect salivary pH such as dry mouth or not brushing the teeth.
There is a blood test for blood pH, and blood is the ONLY thing that can be tested to determine blood pH. But blood pH RARELY goes out of range since either excess alkalinity or excess acidity can both cause health issues and possibly death. Therefore, the body has numerous redundant systems to maintain its pH within normal range. This is also why your body maintains its pH regardless of what you eat.
Thank you James. I imagine all the 5’s in my urinalysis pH tests were due to “dehydration”. I must have a “survival” gene because I am rarely thirsty and “don’t drink enough water”. I don’t drink at meals and just drink when thirsty and I’m rarely thirsty. I’ve got other markers on blood tests that list dehydration as a possible cause.
Hi James,
Would you please illuminate me on this subject? We are trying to find out the effects of electromagnetic exposure on living organisms by utilizing the cell voltage cell pH relation. It is almost impossible to get the cell pH so falling back to blood pH or saliva pH does not save the day either. There is surely an effect of EM so what kind of a marker you could propose to track it?
Dr. Tennant was the one to claim this cell voltage health and cell pH issue altogether.
Kind regards,
Korkut
so please how u explain that countries with the most dairy and meat consumption have much higher rate of osteoporosis ??
thank you,
Diets high in meats and dairy tend to be low in two key nutrients needed to maintain the collagen matrix. Ascorbic acid and orthosilicic acid. As bone collagen is lost there is less surface area for mineralization resulting in osteoporosis.
High intake of dairy and red meats can also lead to other bone disorders such as osteopenia and osteomalacia due to the high protein content and high phosphorus content. High protein blocks calcium absorption, but not phosphorus absorption. The increase in phosphorus absorption in to the blood leads to pseudohyperparathyroidism. As a result excess parathyroid hormone is released resulting in a loss of calcium from bones.
Chris,
This is your first series of posts that I’m going to have to preliminarily disagree with. Thirty years ago, I got a B.S. in Nutrition Science from one of the top nutrition schools in the country — UC Davis. Current nutrition thinking even back then, was based on “research”. And we knew so very little compared to what we know now. Yet, we know so little today compared to what we’re learning and will learn in years to come. In my experience, I would hardly rule something out (like an alkaline diet to help certain health issues) based on what limited research has actually been done. Just because studies have not yet been done to prove something one way or another is not enough. If I based my health, or all the people whom I help with their health, on current research — then I wouldn’t get very far. Sometimes we have to try the unresearched until we find what works.
And regards the field of curing CANCER, if you’ve ever had it, and looked for natural or alternative cures to cancer, then you’ll know how limited research really is! Anyone with cancer who wants to truly help themselves will use any tool available. That especially includes dietary practices that have worked for other survivors. That includes an alkaline diet — albeit with enough protein because the scientist in me knows that we need protein for just about everything in the body. One additional point is that different types of cancer (tumor vs blood) require different diet strategies, in the opinion of many including myself.
That being said, it’s good to keep up on current research, just not to eliminate possible assistance needlessly.
Adele: ” I would hardly rule something out (like an alkaline diet to help certain health issues) based on what limited research has actually been done. ”
It is more dangerous to assume something rather than to rely on evidence of what has been learned through research. And there is a lot more research available that you are implying. Look at PubMed and you will find so much research it can keep you reading for years.
As an example of the dangers of assumption though let’s look at the false belief by some that injecting baking soda can cure cancer.
Research has already shown us that cancer cells are more alkaline than healthy cells and they need that high alkalinity to survive and thrive. Attempting to alkalize them is not going to work as various research with other alkalizers such as cesium chloride and lithium chloride have shown. In fact, cesium chloride, which a lot of people have been duped in to using as a cancer treatment ha s not only been shown to cause cancer but also promote the growth of existing cancers in research. This could be due to in part the fact that research has shown that healthy cells when made excessively alkaline will morph in to cancer cells. Anyway, back to baking soda ingestion. People have incorrectly come to the conclusion that ingesting baking soda will kill cancer cells based on the work of Simoncini and a misinterpreted study often touted. Simoncini was injecting the highly concentrated baking soda solution right in to the tumor, which can kill cancer cells as well as healthy cells through the powerful osmotic shift this will cause. Same principle as injecting concentrated saline in to varicose veins to destroy them. This has nothing to do with alkalizing the cancer. The study often touted discusses how baking soda can help prevent metastases, which people often assume means curing the cancer. No, these ARE NOT the same thing. The enzyme hyaluronidase, which allows cancer cells to spread by breaking down hyaluronic acid is acid dependent for activation. The baking soda alkalizes the EXTERNAL matrix where the hyaluronidase is found thus inhibiting it. This DOES NOT kill the cancer cells as some people have misinterpreted the study to say.
There is still the dangers to drinking the baking soda as well. When ingested the baking soda will come in to contact with the stomach acid neutralizing both the stomach acid and the baking soda forming sodium chloride and carbonic acid. Neutralization of the stomach acid leads to decreased methylation promoting cancer, allows ingested pathogens including cancer causing microbes to survive easier and leads to decreased nutritional uptake and immune suppression that can further promote cancer. In addition, all the salt formation can lead to hyperchloremic acidosis.
Injection of baking soda in to the body must also be done carefully since the injection can also lead to ACIDosis from the carbonic acid formed as the baking soda reacts with acids in the body. This is why doctors have to be so careful when injecting sodium bicarbonate (baking soda) in hospital settings for the treatment of acidosis since the sodium bicarbonate can also induce acidosis.
Again, people need to know how the body works and the chemistry of what they are doing to themselves with treatments to be safe. Assuming things, especially based on other people’s assumptions posted on the internet is just asking for trouble.
As far as the so-called “alkaline diet” even this is a very misleading term since most of the so-called “alkaline foods” are loaded with naturally occurring acids. And ALL foods stimulate the same alkaline response and ALL foods are eventually metabolized in to acids within the body. So there is NO such thing as an “alkaline diet”. On the other hand, nobody is discounting the foods promote in the mythical “alkaline diet”. The foods being promoted are more nutritious that most other foods. Although we still have to keep in mind that if people are neutralizing their stomach acid with garbage like ionized alkaline waters or baking soda in attempt to alkalize the already alkaline blood they are not gong to be absorbing many of those nutrients. Again, people need to understand how their bodies work and the chemistry of what they are doing rather than relying on assumptions just because they did not look at the vast amount of research readily available.
Adele: “And regards the field of curing CANCER, if you’ve ever had it, and looked for natural or alternative cures to cancer, then you’ll know how limited research really is!”
Again not limited at all if people actually look. I am in the process of writing a book on holistic cancer therapies right now. Even though I have been researching cancer for over 30 years I am still finding vast amounts of research on cancer I have never seen before. For example, just last night I found research showing high dose estrogen once being used as an effective treatment for some hormonally sensitive cancers including some breast cancers. It was later replaced though with more dangerous estrogen blockers like Tamoxifen.
Adele: “Anyone with cancer who wants to truly help themselves will use any tool available.”
Some of those tools can conflict with each other. Again, people need to understand how the body works and the chemistry behind what therapies they are doing to help keep themselves out of danger.
Adele: “That especially includes dietary practices that have worked for other survivors. That includes an alkaline diet — albeit with enough protein because the scientist in me knows that we need protein for just about everything in the body. ”
It is not that hard to get sufficient protein, even from plants. In fact, some plant sources are higher in protein that meats. But there are also different qualities of protein. Not all sources are complete proteins for one. And protein sources can contain various compounds that can be detrimental such as hormones, arachidonic acid, high phosphorus or enzyme inhibitors. Or they can contain beneficial anticancer compounds such as phytic acid, acidic polyphenols, phytoestrogens, etc.
Also keep in mind that the body only requires roughly 3 ounces of protein daily. Excess is just going to increase the stress on the body as the body has to deal with the waste products such as the highly alkaline and extremely toxic ammonia formed from amino acid breakdown. Even though a food such as meat, grain or vegetable is not 100% protein with the standard 3 meals a day it really is not hard at all to meet the body’s daily protein requirements.
But getting hack to the mythical “alkaline diet” once again, the benefits of this type diet IS NOT from alkalizing since the diet does not really alkalize. That is why the so-called “alkaline diet” is a myth. Instead, benefits come from the higher nutritional level including the various beneficial, anticancer compounds they can provide such as chlorogenic acid, acidic polyphenols, phytoestrogens (found in all plants), fibers that get fermented in to beneficial acids, etc. And again, when people fall for the alkalize for health myth they often do stupid things like consume baking soda or drink ionized alkaline waters that neutralize stomach acid leading to impaired nutrient absorption, immune dysfunction and increased risk of cancer. So I will say it again. People need to learn how the body actually works and the chemistry behind what they are doing rather than rely on their assumptions or the assumptions made by other people on the internet. Again, there is massive amounts of REAL research readily available for anyone who wishes to look for it. It is incredible as to how much we have really learned about the human body even in just the last 50 years. But not looking for the research DOES NOT mean it doesn’t exist.
It is very interesting as there is evidence to support both theories. However neither side can conclusively prove their claims. What I did find interesting is the use of bi-carb soda in treating some cancers, namely colon or skin cancers. Dr Toullio Simoncinni’s work in this area is gaining a lot of interest and many others are also using this method. The one thing that does appear to be undisputed is that diets high in vegetables and fruits, result in statistically lower incidences of cancer, heart disease, arthritis and diabetes. I have seen many published studies claiming this to be true. Even the American Cancer Council and American Heart Foundation mention this on their websites. With a number of studies also accessible through the National Institute of Health. Without constantly taking blood samples from people to determine whether the acid / alkaline theory does in fact play a significant role in the development of disease, we can probably only continue to speculate. Whether we are for or against the theory, it may simply be the removal of processed, refined foods, and the addition of nutrient, antioxidant, phytochemical and fibre rich plant foods, that are in fact resulting in less incidence of disease.
Daisy: ”
Daisy: “It is very interesting as there is evidence to support both theories. However neither side can conclusively prove their claims.
I have yet to see any REAL evidence to back the alkalize for health hypothesis, or the hypothesis that you can even alkalize the body through diet. As pointed out previously ALL foods are made acidic in the stomach then the chyme alkalized in the intestines as the “alkaline response”. Then ALL foods are eventually metabolized in to acids.
It has also been pointed out numerous times that even the so-called “alkaline foods” are generally loaded with naturally occurring acids.
Bottom line is that there really is no such thing as an “alkaline food”.
Daisy: “What I did find interesting is the use of bi-carb soda in treating some cancers, namely colon or skin cancers. Dr Toullio Simoncinni’s work in this area is gaining a lot of interest and many others are also using this method.”
There are several important facts that people keep overlooking when referencing Simoncini. First of all the neutralization of one acid with baking soda produces an acid called carbonic acid. This is why when baking soda is given intravenously in a hospital setting it must be used with extreme caution to prevent rebound acidosis. And if ingested the baking soda is neutralized by the stomach acid producing not only carbonic acid, but also a lot of sodium chloride, which can cause hyperchloremic acidosis.
It has already been shown in various studies that cancer cells have a higher than normal pH that healthy cells. Cancer cells need this higher that normal alkalinity to survive and thrive. When their proton pumps are blocked the cancer cells become acidic killing them.
Studies have also repeatedly shown that alkalizers such as lithium chloride and cesium chloride DO NOT kill cancer cells. In fact, it has been shown that highly alkaline cesium chloride often touted as a cancer treatment not only causes cancer, but also promotes the growth of existing cancer cells.
What Simoncini was doing was injecting the sodium bicarbonate (baking soda) directly in to the tumors. This can kill cancer cells, but this has NOTHING to do with alkalizing since as pointed out the neutralization of any acid will simply form more acid. The process can kill cancer cells through a strong osmotic shift, which can kill cancer cells as easily as healthy cells. Therefore, in my opinion it is not much different than chemotherapy in the fact that the therapy DOES NOT selectively kill cancer cells. If you want to understand this process better research sclerotherapy for varicose veins in which a concentrated sodium chloride solution is injected in to the varicose veins to destroy the tissue. Again, this has NOTHING to with alkalizing.
And keep in mind that some of Simoncini’s patients died from his therapy. One reason this may have occurred is because the therapy, just like chemotherapy and radiation therapies, can destroy healthy cells just as easily as cancer cells. Or it is possible that Simoncini’s therapy killed these people from the rebound acidosis induced by the sodium bicarbonate injections.
I do believe Simoncini is on to something here, and there is a scientific basis to how his therapy could kill cells. Unfortunately this also includes healthy cells. And Simoncini would have been taken more seriously if he had not been touting ridiculous, bogus claims such as cancer is Candida. Then he confuses Aspergillus for Candida even though they ARE NOT the same thing and are not even related.
In fact, studies have proven that alkalinity promotes Candida overgrowth and pathogenicity. Alkalinity does this by turning on the Candida growth gene and by morphing the Candida from its benign yeast form in to its pathogenic fungal form.
Also keep in mind that EVERYONE has Candida, it is a normal inhabitant of the body. Not everyone has candidiasis though, which is the overgrowth of fungal Candida. In its fungal form the Candida forms finger-like projections known as hyphae that allow the Candida to dig in to the tissues causing tissue damage and inflammation, but not cancer. And again, the Candida morphs in to this pathogenic fungal form in an alkaline environment. If Simoncini was correct and cancer and Candida were the same thing then everyone would have cancer, which IS NOT the case. I have heard the claim that everyone does have cancer by several people including some doctors. But this is a complete myth. I am not going in to an explanation of this here. It is a long explanation and I already covered this in depth in the book on holistic cancer therapies I am working on. In short though if everyone was developing cancer cells daily as claimed then none of us would be here.
Daisy: “The one thing that does appear to be undisputed is that diets high in vegetables and fruits, result in statistically lower incidences of cancer, heart disease, arthritis and diabetes. I have seen many published studies claiming this to be true.”
Agreed, but this has NOTHING to do with alkalizing. Especially considering the fact that ALL foods including fruits vegetables, meats, candy bars, etc. will metabolize in to acids in the long run. There is NO such thing as a truly alkaline food. And again, most of the foods incorrectly called “alkaline foods” are full of naturally occurring acids. And again, ALL foods produce the same “alkaline response”, which is simply pancreatic bicarbonate neutralizing the acids in chyme as it exists the stomach to protect the intestines. This has NO effect on blood pH as is often falsely claimed.
Daisy: “Without constantly taking blood samples from people to determine whether the acid / alkaline theory does in fact play a significant role in the development of disease, we can probably only continue to speculate.”
Or we can add a little common sense and think about the well known fact that the body can only live in a very narrow pH range. If acidosis or the extremely more dangerous alkalosis occurs we can die. This is why the body has so many redundant systems to maintain its pH and why both of these conditions are so extremely rare. If foods really produced excess acidity or alkalinity as is so often claimed by the alkalize for health supporters then people would be dying right and left from acidosis and alkalosis just from eating. But the fact is that diet does not really alkalize the blood and actually has virtually no direct influence on blood pH. The main effect on blood pH from food is indirect, and involves the production of beneficial acids by the metabolism of ALL foods, including fruits and vegetables. Virtually all pH regulation though is controlled by respiration, followed by kidney retention or elimination of hydrogen ions, not diet.
Bottom line here is that common sense tells us that pH has very little to do with most disease since pH imbalances are EXTREMELY rare as where diseases are very common.
Daisy: “Whether we are for or against the theory, it may simply be the removal of processed, refined foods, and the addition of nutrient, antioxidant, phytochemical and fibre rich plant foods, that are in fact resulting in less incidence of disease.”
And there is the answer to why the so-called “alkaline diet is more healthy. It has NOTHING to do with alkalizing but rather the higher levels of nutrients, phytochemicals, which include a number of beneficial acids, and fibers that promote health in large part by the beneficial acids they are fermented in to.
Dear All Guests,
This is an open request whoever can guide.
I am PhD student working on electromagnetics trying find a mechanism on the effects of EM onto body and one way it seems is the electrical effects on the body. Dr Tennant from US claims a voltage health relation and he also connects it further into pH with a voltage versus pH relation. To note this is not the blood pH but the cell pH. It is definitely very hard to sample cell voltages but could be easier to find cell pH. Don’t know.
Now any comments, advise, guidance will be welcome. I am an EE so I may stumble on deep medical terms.
QEEG loreta system I heard for brain related such sampling. Looking for its details. Bring on more please.
Regards,
Korkut
I figured all references were coming from “Abstract”. Those studies are not showing the details. The value of them is nothing.
Abstracts are just a summary of the study and the results. This does not invalidate the study and the entire studies can be found if someone wants more details such as how the study was designed and conducted.
This article is BS. I’ve seen the alkaline diet work from a friend within months. And I see all the obese sickly people pulling into McDonald’s for their daily fix of addictive food product. There’s a reason why the US has sick care (we neglectfully call it ‘healthcare’)….its because they make money off of sick people. You people trying to debunk this…well, you make me sick but you’re not going to make a dime off me in the hospital.
Nobody is claiming the so-called “alkaline diet” is not healthy. What has been pointed out over and over but the alkaline supporters cannot seem to grasp is the fact that the so-called “alkaline diet” DOES NOT alkalize the body. In fact the so-called “alkaline foods” are often loaded with naturally occurring acids. And like all foods the “alkaline foods” are eventually metabolized in to acids. The health benefits of the so-called “alkaline diet” is the result of the higher nutritional value including acidic vitamins. It has NOTHING to do with altering the blood’s pH to obtain health benefits.
So I just wanted to put this out there. FOR ALL TYPE 1 DIABETICS. The artifical insulin they give us has an acid base. After being this product for less then a year my blood ph registered as 4.7.
BEWARE! They don’t list this as a problem and can make it a lot harder on our kidneys then they already are. I also was starting to see my insulin not be as effective as it was. So I started eating a tablespoon of baking soda a day and my ph is around 6.0 now and going up after about month. HAVE YOURSELF CHECKED!!!
If you your blood pH was 4.7, you would have already died. The pH stays in a very narrow range. And through breathe and kidneys can adjust anytime.
Finally an article worthy of note concerning the feeding of acid and alkaline foods
I don’t recall blood pH being the factor cited when I read or was told an alkaline ash diet was better than acid. So I am a bit confused on that point, since I don’t recall blood ever being discussed.
However, I have heard and it seems possible that an overall acid-producing diet paves the way for imbalance that lets cancer and other things get a hold and grow, because they are more suited to that environment than they are to a more ‘natural’, less acid-producing diet.
I know there is a lot more to this than meets the eye. I deal in energy work, and it’s obvious that no one diet is proof against disease. It’s what you think that matters. Yet, I do subscribe to the belief that a more ‘natural’ diet is less acid-forming and healthier and sometimes seems to rectify health issues.
What part of the change in diet is causing the healing in your opinion? I would have felt the shift in pH was helping, but you must have another opinion? You aren’t saying we should all eat grain or anything else we like, because it doesn’t matter what we eat as long as our kidneys are working, are you???
The Importance of the Ionic Product for Water to Understand the Physiology of the Acid-Base Balance in Humans
This may help people understand the process.
Your article does back up all I have been saying all along.
For example, the article states:
“The relationship between carbon dioxide and bicarbonate is additionally underlined by the fact that the infusion of sodium bicarbonate increases carbon dioxide production and arterial pCO2, as it was first documented in 1956 [23, 24].”
Increased CO2 increases carbonic acid levels, which backs what I have been saying all along about how sodium bicarbonate (baking soda) therapy actually increases acidosis.
In fact, they bring up another potential source of acidosis from the use of baking soda where they write:
“The anions most frequently encountered in conditions leading to metabolic acidosis are chloride (hyperchloremic acidosis)”
And:
“8.1.1. Hyperchloremic (Nonanion Gap) Acidosis
An increase in the plasma concentration of chloride out of proportion of sodium causes hyperchloremic acidosis. The relative increase in plasma chloride may be due to either exogenous administration of chloride in excess of sodium or a decrease in the plasma sodium concentration with no change in the chloride level.”
Hyperchloremiic acidosis can be induced by too much sodium chloride (“table salt”). When people ingest baking soda the baking soda reacts with stomach acid dangerously neutralizing the stomach acid while generating large amounts of sodium chloride as the sodium from the baking soda combines with chlorine from the stomach acid. The excess of the Cl- displaces the bicarbonate ion leading to acidosis.
In addition, the ingestion of baking soda can also induce diarrhea, which in turn can also lead to a loss of bicarbonate ion leading to metabolic acidosis.
The article you linked also goes in to what Mr. Kessler and I have been explaining over and over about how respiration and hydrogen ion retention or excretion the primary means of pH regulation for the body. As we pointed out diet has very little influence on maintaining the alkalinity of blood.
The article starts off stating: “The more ridiculous claim is that we can change the pH of our blood by changing the foods we eat”. So the author believes that drinking 3 liters of coke a day would not influence your bloods pH level? If you inject acid into anything, it is obvious it gets more acidic. Even a school kid could tell you that. Obviously the body CAN adjust the pH level by grabbing calcium from the bones and teeth, otherwise we would be dead, but it is easier for the body to adjust the pH to a normal level if we don’t fill it with acid. Maybe those who claimed to have done those clinical trials work for Coca Cola or McDonalds. Usually there is some hidden vested interest behind such articles, that are expensively sponsored on Facebook and Google, like this one. Either way this article is total rubbish.
Faisal: “So the author believes that drinking 3 liters of coke a day would not influence your bloods pH level? If you inject acid into anything, it is obvious it gets more acidic. Even a school kid could tell you that. ”
Even a school kid knows that ingesting something and injecting something ARE NOT the same thing. If you ingest 3 liters of Coke it is not going to kill you right away like injecting 3 liter of coke in to your body.
When we ingest anything though whether alkaline or slightly acidic it is going to be made acidic in the stomach. Then the acids in the chyme will be neutralized by pancreatic bicarbonate as the chyme leaves the stomach.
Even when the blood starts to become acidic for some reason again it is respiration that is the main means of pH regulation. Next is hydrogen ion retention or excretion by the kidneys. Followed by various other means of pH regulation before minerals will be removed from bones and teeth. The body only uses minerals from bone as a very last resort. And considering that this takes extremely severe acidosis, which is extremely rare the bones are almost never used as a source of pH balance. This is just one of those myths that keep getting circulated in the alkalize for health circles that they can never back with any evidence because it is not true to begin with.
Daniel: “So what he’s saying is don’t bother trying to eat healthy, just do what you want because in his opinion, this stuff doesn’t work. ”
That is not even close to what was said. The article WAS NOT about what is healthy or unhealthy to eat. It was just about the simple fact that you CANNOT change your blood pH through diet.
If you want to discuss foods that are healthy vs unhealthy then find a blog article on that topic. But don’t assume someone is saying something they were not saying just because they are discussing a completely different topic than you assume they are discussing.
Well, that doesn’t mean we cannot change the pH of other parts of the body, like digestive system, for ex.
Mouth thrush means what? How you treat it? What red flag is it of?
Hi M.M.,
Thrush (candidiasis) is an overgrowth of Candida albicans.
Not many people seem to realize that Candida is a normal part of everyone’s body. So everyone has Candida, but not everyone has candidiasis.
Normally Candida in and on the body is kept in control by the acids produced by the flora that inhabit our bodies. The acidity not only turns off the Candida growth gene, but also keeps this dimorphic (two forms) microbe in its benign yeast form. When the flora levels decline, such as with antibiotic use, the pH of the terrain becomes alkaline. When this happens the alkalinity turns on the Candida growth gene and morphs the Candida in to its pathogenic fungal form. In its fungal form the Candida forms finger-like projections known as hyphae that allow the Candida to dig in to the tissues leading to damage and inflammation.
Here are some posts I did on the subject that you may find interesting:
http://curezone.info/forums/fm.asp?i=1452732#i
http://curezone.info/forums/fm.asp?i=1452739#i
http://curezone.info/forums/fm.asp?i=1868868#i
http://curezone.info/forums/fm.asp?i=1552151#i
http://curezone.info/forums/fm.asp?i=1552677#i
http://curezone.info/forums/fm.asp?i=1461389#i
http://curezone.info/forums/fm.asp?i=1451150#i
http://curezone.info/forums/fm.asp?i=1555407#i
And a video I did on the subject:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMPoie_16ns
James
So what he’s saying is don’t bother trying to eat healthy, just do what you want because in his opinion, this stuff doesn’t work.
Sounds like someone who doesn’t want to practice self control and remember that we, as a whole have been patterned to be unhealthy and it’s not some hokey, hippie idea.
Go ahead give up on being smart about your diet gain weight, get huge with all the problems that come with it, maybe you’ll at least die content… and very young.
Worst article to put out there, to discourage people from eating better foods.
Yep, if the body regulates virtually everything, including counting of calories and weight, why are we bothering about eating the paleo way?
PS.: Thanks, Jefferson, for giving me this link, but I happen to bump into this site some days ago and enjoying it.
Simply wish to say your article is as astounding.
The clearness in your post is just spectacular and i can assume you are an expert on this subject.
Fine with your permission allow me to grab your feed to keep updated with forthcoming post.
Thanks a million and please continue the enjoyable work.
THANK YOU so so much for posting this article. These diet trends are ridiculous! Its really disturbing to think that people will believe anything they hear!
see my previous comment
He has lost many points……..at root life is bioelectrical let consider Ph balance and redox balance as bioelectrical balance , life need a relatively more quote of negative charge, electrons are the more little antioxidant and alcalizer. the blood has to’ be in strict ranges and especiale p h. Each eritrocite can carry from 1 million to’ 14 million of electrons, tris is a real alcaline reserve of blood , we need electrons for energy i.e. Mitocondrial oxidative phosphorilation, and for sustaining flow… Of nutrients one way catabolites and toxins the other way. Our blood is a colloid as Our lymph mucus , flam, we are 80 percent water, the more of that in colloidal state so let study water and colloid! In evryday practice we confront with that. let see at ESR erithrosedimentation rate. The ESR dépend mostly from two Things fibrinogen and other cationics protein mostly infiammatory and ROS , the other side there is zeta potential the electronegatives charge of blood. more plus charge and ESR is higher , blood sticky sludge and slow ( blood stasis and congestion ) more negatives charge , the ESR is low and blood fluid. tris happens be cause in colloidal state negative elettrical charge surround particles, cells allowing repulsion dispersion and flow one Things that affect mostly zeta potential is pH……
These comments are all very well, but annoyingly ego-based, point-scoring, pride laden ‘digs’ at others’ views. There is so much dietary information out there, it is easy to make a claim, then counter it, then counter that, ad infinitum. For me, a slim and healthy 65 year old, football playing, non-smoking., non-drinking vegan, it is a no brainer not to eat meat. Firstly, a clear conscience to a large degree (nothing dies for my diet); secondly, it’s liberating to break the habits of a lifetime (brought up with meat and dairy); thirdly, I don’t have to buy in to yet more hypocrisy (let’s go watch a cute animal cartoon about a cute talking piggy with the kids, then feed them pork sausages for tea…..etc etc etc. Man evolved from a primeval swamp, progressed through stages to what we now call ‘modern man’. At some point we will surely develop a deeper level of consciousness and learn about better, kinder ways to exist. As a vegan, I feel I am, in a small way, at the forefront of this next stage of human development.
this is very interesting. i particularly enjoyed the heated post-post discussion! after some research both online and in textbooks, i found an article that seems to make some sense regarding alkalinity and health. http://mariannemorris.wordpress.com/2014/05/11/alkalinity-acidity/
Here is a post I did on the comments in response to someone posting the same old myths about acidity causing cancer by decreasing oxygen. I also address some claims of the article itself:
“These myths were disproven decades ago.
The biggest problem with your claim is the part stating that acidosis leads to cancer by decreasing oxygen levels to the cells. First of all it is alkalosis that leads to decreased oxygen, not acidosis. Acidity is required to release oxygen from hemoglobin to tissues. Alkalosis inhibits this leading to tissue hypoxia. Alkalosis also decreases circulation by constricting blood vessels and in severe cases leads to death due to suffocation from contraction spasms of the lungs.
The whole “primitive form of respiration” claims come from a hypothesis by Otto Warburg who thought cancer cells had a respiratory defect that led to their generating most of their energy through anaerobic glycolysis. Warburg’s hypotheses were disproven decades ago.
Modern research has proven that not only are cancer cells highly dependent on oxygen for survival and growth, but they generate at least 50% of their energy through oxidative phosphorylation (OxPhos), which requires sufficient oxygen. Even though cancer cells rely less on OxPhos, cancer cells have been shown to have a much higher affinity for available oxygen than healthy cells.
In fact, it is the death of early cancer cells that stimulate the formation of angiogenic growth factors such as vascular endothelial growth factor, which increases the oxygen supply to malignant tumors increasing their growth and survival.
Modern research has also proven that the internal pH of cancer cells are more alkaline than healthy cells. Cancer cells maintain this alkalinity to allow them to survive and thrive. They maintain their alkalinity by exporting the acidic hydrogen protons formed from energy production in to the external matrix. When the proton pumps are blocked the cancer cells become acidic killing them.
Modern research has also shown that when healthy cells are made excessively alkaline these healthy cells morph in to cancer cells.
If you do your homework you will also find that many of the best natural cures for cancer are acids. Betulinic acid, chlorogenic acid, acidic polyphenols, etc.
Acidosis is actually extremely rare, as is the extremely more dangerous alkalosis.
The article is rather misleading as well as respiration is the body’s primary means of pH balance. Dumping or retention of protons by the kidneys is secondary. Buffering by proteins or calcium phosphate are not primary means of pH regulation. In fact, using calcium phosphate from bones is a last resort. Most calcium loss from bones is due to hyperparathyroidism and pseudohyperparathyroidism, which have nothing to do with acidosis.”