Re: Acid/Alkaline (terminological abuse) - Heidi

[Guest guest]

HEIDI wrote:

One isomer of lactic acid is a culprit

in this ... acidopholus bacteria make that isomer, and most people do

in fact excrete it so fast it never causes acidosis, but the urine becomes

more acidic, and folks who have some metabolic problem don't excrete

if fast enough so it can be said that it " tends " to make the blood

acidic.

_____

CHRIS writes:

It would be more accurate to say it " tries " to make the blood acidic than it

" tends " to, because in a person without the metabolic problem, it doesn't. Do

you have any references for how this metabolic problem interacts with lactic

acid? Is the problem resolved by removing a dietary source of the lactic

acid? If it isn't, then there is no respect in which it could be accurate to

refer to the food as " acidifying. " Even if it is, it is still a gross

distortion

to refer to the food as such when it is only a limited fraction of the

population with a metabolic dysfunction for whom it has that effect.

_____

HEIDI wrote:

Exercise does that too, and a few other things (smoking might

be in there too, and meat eating). The folks that believe in

acidifying foods are measuring acid in the urine or saliva, where

it is dumped ... but that doesn't mean the blood actually goes

acid for any length of time.

______

CHRIS writes:

Which is why their writings are complete and worthless junk science. The

urine has a wide range of acceptable pH, and the phosphate buffer system

prevents

wider variations than are acceptable. If the urine becomes more acidic when

there is more acid in the body, it basically means that the system is in

working order.

To say that there is an " acidifying effect on the body " is a uselessly vague

phrase, because an acidifying effect on the blood would be harmful; an

acidifying effect on the urine would be neutral; an acidifying effect on, say,

the

stomach, would be positive.

______

HEIDI wrote:

That said, it doesn't follow that all the acidifying substances are

evil.

Nor does it follow that they should be called " acidifying, " even. Especially

since many of them (such as meat) are full of bases (which are opposed to

acids) that make up the important buffer systems!

_____

HEIDI wrote:

But I have found that if I eat the so-called alkaline foods

with the so-called acidic foods, I generally feel better ... I think

they do balance each other out in some chemical sense. So I

always have kimchi with my meat.

_____

CHRIS writes:

Is kimchi alkaline with all that acid in it? There are no such finite

categories of " acid " and " alkaline. " There are, rather, a multiplicity of

conflicting categories. There are those who characterize foods by acid or

alkaline

ash, then there are those who advocate a strict breakdown of acid-forming and

alkaline-forming foods regardless of ash content, and then there are those who

divide people into metabolic groups, and say some foods are acid-forming for one

metabolic type, and alkaline-forming for another. The many researchers in

the second category disagree with each other on which foods are in which group,

and the many researchers in the third category disagree very widely on not

only which foods are in which group, but how to classify the people and how many

and what kind of metabolic types there are!

The last time we had this discussion, you mentioned eating greens with meat,

and calcium, and I believe it was kind of left at, yeah, greens and meat go

well for reasons other than acid/base, and meat requires calcium because Ca-P

ratio in blood needs to be maintained. Phosphorus is, of course, a base, not an

acid, and calcium is positively charged so can NOT neutralize an acid by the

laws of physics, so clearly we can dump out the window altogether the idea

that meat is acidifying because it is full of phosphorus which leaches calcium

out of the bones to neutralize it!

So, maybe these people are hitting on something with an invalid acid/alkaline

theory, like, " everything in moderation, " or " eat from all of the food

groups " or something, but whatever it is, (or they are), has little to do with

the

explanatory mechanisms they're giving it.

And, such " points " above are age-old adages that don't need complex and wrong

theories to justify them. They are intuitive concepts that most people have

traditionally recognized, so there's really little value in the acid/base

pseudoscience, because the idea that you should eat greens and meat together

isn't

a new and unique contribution of theirs. It was already around and

understood by most people.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>CHRIS writes:

>

>It would be more accurate to say it " tries " to make the blood acidic than it

> " tends " to, because in a person without the metabolic problem, it doesn't. Do

>you have any references for how this metabolic problem interacts with lactic

>acid? Is the problem resolved by removing a dietary source of the lactic

>acid? If it isn't, then there is no respect in which it could be accurate to

>refer to the food as " acidifying. " Even if it is, it is still a gross

distortion

>to refer to the food as such when it is only a limited fraction of the

>population with a metabolic dysfunction for whom it has that effect.

I think the " fear factor " part is distorting, but to say that a certain

thing " tries " or " tends " or whatever is just saying what happens.

There are two kinds of lactic acid ... one is easily metabolised,

the other isn't, and that is true for most or all people. Some people

have a harder time getting rid of it than others. Probably a more

accurate terminology would be something like the engineers

use when they refer to " pressure, " as in " population pressure "

or " air pressure " ... a force is exerted, it may or may not result

in movement or change.

______

>CHRIS writes:

>

>Which is why their writings are complete and worthless junk science. The

>urine has a wide range of acceptable pH, and the phosphate buffer system

prevents

>wider variations than are acceptable. If the urine becomes more acidic when

>there is more acid in the body, it basically means that the system is in

>working order.

>

>To say that there is an " acidifying effect on the body " is a uselessly vague

>phrase, because an acidifying effect on the blood would be harmful; an

>acidifying effect on the urine would be neutral; an acidifying effect on, say,

the

>stomach, would be positive.

>______

In terms of " junk science, " I tend to agree ... acid urine is a reading (like

the brix

reading on an orange) and may mean different things in different contexts,

and I agree it isn't necessarily harmful. But it does, to me, explain what the

" acid " folks are talking about, because, like you, I don't think the blood PH

varies much at all unless you are very, very sick. Like emergency room sick.

Chris:

Nor does it follow that they should be called " acidifying, " even. Especially

>since many of them (such as meat) are full of bases (which are opposed to

>acids) that make up the important buffer systems!

H: Except that beef IS acidifying ... it creates uric acid when digested (even

though meat itself isn't acid). Which again, is handled by most folks, and

even folks who can't (who have gout) don't get " acid blood " from it, but

it does cause bone changes, is that from the calcium reacting with the

uric acid? So again you have an " acid pressure " on the system if one

is describing what is going on (as opposed to trying to scare people

away from eating meat).

>

>CHRIS writes:

>

>Is kimchi alkaline with all that acid in it? There are no such finite

>categories of " acid " and " alkaline. " There are, rather, a multiplicity of

>conflicting categories. There are those who characterize foods by acid or

alkaline

>ash, then there are those who advocate a strict breakdown of acid-forming and

>alkaline-forming foods regardless of ash content, and then there are those who

>divide people into metabolic groups, and say some foods are acid-forming for

one

>metabolic type, and alkaline-forming for another. The many researchers in

>the second category disagree with each other on which foods are in which group,

>and the many researchers in the third category disagree very widely on not

>only which foods are in which group, but how to classify the people and how

many

>and what kind of metabolic types there are!

Heidi writes:

I thought the " ash content " thing was totally bogus, until I started reading

something similar in some mainstream journals, I think it was about

animal feed. Basically foods that have calcium and some other minerals

tend to be " alkali " and they help handle stuff like urea from meat. Like you,

I don't think it's something most folks need to worry about much, the

body balances itself nicely. I don't think it has anything to do with metabolic

type though, and the reactions involved are complicated enough that probably

the " food traditions " we have handle the cases well enough. There are other

food combining traditions that work well too even if we don't understand

why, like oil on salad (helps absorb oil-soluble vitamines).

writes:

>The last time we had this discussion, you mentioned eating greens with meat,

>and calcium, and I believe it was kind of left at, yeah, greens and meat go

>well for reasons other than acid/base, and meat requires calcium because Ca-P

>ratio in blood needs to be maintained. Phosphorus is, of course, a base, not

an

>acid, and calcium is positively charged so can NOT neutralize an acid by the

>laws of physics, so clearly we can dump out the window altogether the idea

>that meat is acidifying because it is full of phosphorus which leaches calcium

>out of the bones to neutralize it!

I don't think it's as simple as acid/base either ... some of the reactions

involved

are complicated, but meat does seem to require more calcium. I think the

base/acid explanation is kind of like the intuitive " yin/yang " explanations

of Chinese medicine ... SOMETHING is going on, but not necessarily as

it is explained.

>So, maybe these people are hitting on something with an invalid acid/alkaline

>theory, like, " everything in moderation, " or " eat from all of the food

>groups " or something, but whatever it is, (or they are), has little to do with

the

>explanatory mechanisms they're giving it.

GMTA. (Great minds think alike!)

>And, such " points " above are age-old adages that don't need complex and wrong

>theories to justify them. They are intuitive concepts that most people have

>traditionally recognized, so there's really little value in the acid/base

>pseudoscience, because the idea that you should eat greens and meat together

isn't

>a new and unique contribution of theirs. It was already around and

>understood by most people.

Personally I'd love it if all the pseudoscience disappeared, but it's

not gonna happen. You study science and feel comfortable with

it, but most people want something simpler as an explanation

that still sounds " official " . Same thing happens in politics .. a person

who gives a realistic appraisal of a situation is often highly

criticized by the populace, but the same populace will embrace

some simplistic (though implausable) explanation. Hitler being

a good example, the furor over the " ozone hole " being another.

>

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

Heidi wrote:

<<<<<There are two kinds of lactic acid ... one is easily metabolised,

the other isn't, and that is true for most or all people. Some people

have a harder time getting rid of it than others.>>>>>

_____

writes:

Ok, but lactic acid itself, like any other acid itself, does not have an

acidifying effect on anything. Only dissociated H+ ion has an acidifying

effect,

and dissociated H+ ion can be handled easily by anyone (without repspiratory-

or metabolic-induced acidosis or alkalosis, which is independent of the

specific acid(s) in the body), regardless of the conjugate base that the H+ ion

has

been dissociated from.

_____

Heidi wrote:

<<<<< Probably a more

accurate terminology would be something like the engineers

use when they refer to " pressure, " as in " population pressure "

or " air pressure " ... a force is exerted, it may or may not result

in movement or change.>>>

____

writes:

Yes, or rather, no *net* change. But that's not the implication of the

acid-alkaline theorists. The implication of their theories is that there is a

net

change.

______

Heidi wrote:

<<<<<H: Except that beef IS acidifying ... it creates uric acid when digested

(even

though meat itself isn't acid).>>>>>

____

So what? It also provides phosphorus, which is a base, and which regulates

the renal buffer system, and some intracellular buffer systems, and contains

protein, which makes up one of the main buffer systems of the blood. Further,

the urea is metabolized and counteracted by buffer systems. So, on the second

note, it can't be said to be " acidifying " unless it actually causes a change

towards acid, and it doesn't. (Anything other than a *net change* is

irrelevant from the question.) On the first, you can only refer to " meat " per

se as

having some given effect once you take the net effect of all its constituent

parts. It may provide acids, but if it provides bases also, you can't call it

" acid. "

Also, carbon dioxide is one of the main metabolic byproducts of

carbohydrates, which acts as an acid in solution, and therefore, by the same

logic, all

carbohydrate foods are " acidifying. "

____

Heidi wrote:

<<<<< Which again, is handled by most folks, and

even folks who can't (who have gout) don't get " acid blood " from it, but

it does cause bone changes, is that from the calcium reacting with the

uric acid?>>>>>

____

writes:

That and/or phosphorus I guess. But do you have any evidence that the *urea*

is causal here? I'm not saying it's not-- but I'm wondering whether these

studies are finding that high meat intakes can cause bone problems, or whether

it is specificially the accumulation of uric acid.

____

Heidi wrote:

<<<<< So again you have an " acid pressure " on the system if one

is describing what is going on (as opposed to trying to scare people

away from eating meat).>>>>>

_____

writes:

I'm not sure what really is going on. Could you provide a reference that

describes the accumulation of uric acid and its effects on bone?

____

Heidi wrote:

<<<<I don't think it's as simple as acid/base either ... some of the

reactions involved

are complicated, but meat does seem to require more calcium. I think the

base/acid explanation is kind of like the intuitive " yin/yang " explanations

of Chinese medicine ... SOMETHING is going on, but not necessarily as

it is explained.>>>>>

____

writes:

If it's true that the Ca:P ratio is constant in the blood, then that is the

most sensible explanation. In particular, because it jives with the fact that

high-meat is *good* if you have a lot of calcium, and bad for bones if you

have less calcium.

______

Heidi wrote:

<<<<<Personally I'd love it if all the pseudoscience disappeared, but it's

not gonna happen. You study science and feel comfortable with

it, but most people want something simpler as an explanation

that still sounds " official " . Same thing happens in politics .. a person

who gives a realistic appraisal of a situation is often highly

criticized by the populace, but the same populace will embrace

some simplistic (though implausable) explanation. Hitler being

a good example, the furor over the " ozone hole " being another.>>>>>

_____

writes:

So you too are skeptical of the theory that human agency has caused holes in

the ozone layer? I didn't realize this. Do you believe that it is caused by

weather cycles?

I think it's been basically proven that atmospheric fluorine causes a

degradation of ozone, but it only does this significantly in certain temperature

ranges, and there is *loads* of atmospheric fluorine present naturally,

independent of human agency, and it seems most probable that the holes observed

are not

due to increases in that load of fluorine, but changes in the natural

temperature cycle that accelerate the ozone-degradating reaction.

What do you think about it?

Chris

[Guest guest]

>writes:

>

>Ok, but lactic acid itself, like any other acid itself, does not have an

>acidifying effect on anything. Only dissociated H+ ion has an acidifying

effect,

>and dissociated H+ ion can be handled easily by anyone (without repspiratory-

>or metabolic-induced acidosis or alkalosis, which is independent of the

>specific acid(s) in the body), regardless of the conjugate base that the H+ ion

has

>been dissociated from.

Heidi:

Right, but I think we agree that the blood level isn't going to change

much regardless. The Acid/base folks measure the Ph of the urine ...

eating meat, or exercising, or eating high lactic-acid foods can cause

low-Ph urine, however you want to characterize it, based on a lot

of people eating foods then testing their urine. So the question

then is ... why? The answer might be different depending on

the food in question. Whether or not this is a problem might also

depend on the food in question.

>Heidi wrote:

>

><<<<<H: Except that beef IS acidifying ... it creates uric acid when digested

>(even

>though meat itself isn't acid).>>>>>

>

>____

>

>So what? It also provides phosphorus, which is a base, and which regulates

>the renal buffer system, and some intracellular buffer systems, and contains

>protein, which makes up one of the main buffer systems of the blood. Further,

>the urea is metabolized and counteracted by buffer systems. So, on the second

>note, it can't be said to be " acidifying " unless it actually causes a change

>towards acid, and it doesn't. (Anything other than a *net change* is

>irrelevant from the question.) On the first, you can only refer to " meat " per

se as

>having some given effect once you take the net effect of all its constituent

>parts. It may provide acids, but if it provides bases also, you can't call it

> " acid. "

>

>Also, carbon dioxide is one of the main metabolic byproducts of

>carbohydrates, which acts as an acid in solution, and therefore, by the same

logic, all

>carbohydrate foods are " acidifying. "

Like I said, I don't think it's actually acids or bases in the food that

are the issue ... carb foods cause acidosis in ruminants, because

they feed bacteria that form lactic acid that the ruminant can't

digest. The same thing may happen in some people (when acidophilus

takes over the gut too much). Meat alone is certainly not acidic, but

it does cause people to excrete uric acid ... kimchi is acidic but seems

to be metabolized as " alkaline " .

> ____

>

>writes:

>

>That and/or phosphorus I guess. But do you have any evidence that the *urea*

>is causal here? I'm not saying it's not-- but I'm wondering whether these

>studies are finding that high meat intakes can cause bone problems, or whether

>it is specificially the accumulation of uric acid.

H: well, my Dad had gout, and it was decidedly meat that caused him to

writhe in pain. I really don't think a person SHOULD get gout from eating

meat, I think something else was going on that made him not able to handle the

urea. He gave up meat, which I think was a mistake, but there wasn't any

other option he knew of.

Apparently uric acid is created by the body, but also any food high in purines

creates uric acid as a byproduct. I don't know that uric acid is the reason

that the body seems to need calcium for meat metabolism ... calcium, magnesium,

potassium, phosphorus all seem to be tied together and when one gets

out of sync so do the others (as you've described in more detail).

Interestingly, some of the dinosaurs got gout! They think it may

have been from not getting enough water, and them being meat eating

dinos.

Anyway, I don't think anyone knows all the mechanisms. But take this

for example:

----------------

http://www.health911.com/remedies/rem_gout.htm

• Diuretics - lead to reduced sodium and potassium. Other short-term effects may

include increases in cholesterol and glucose levels and biochemical changes that

affect the levels of magnesium and calcium in the body. They may also increase

uric acid levels, triggering gout. This effect is especially important for

people who use diuretics continually for either dieting or hypertension.

To correct the lack of potassium (the recommended intake is 3,500 mg, but it is

safe to take considerably more) take supplements or eat foods high in potassium,

such as baked potato, with skin (844), 1 cup cooked spinach (838), ½ cup dried

peaches (784), ½ medium avocado (604), 1 cup cantaloupe (494), ½ cup boiled lima

beans (478), medium banana (451), 1 cup orange juice (436), 15 raw baby carrots

(420), 1 cup of skim milk (406), 1 cup nonfat yogurt (390), ½ cup non-salted

tomato sauce (350), 4 oz. lean hamburger (349), ½ cup canned kidney beans (329),

yams, dried prunes, etc. If you eat enough of these fruits and vegetables you

will not need to take a potassium supplement. Potassium makes the acid crystals

go into solution so they can be eliminated.

--------------------------

Lack of potassium seems to be one cause of gout ... most of the foods they list

to get more potassium are the so-called " alkaline " foods, or at least if you eat

lots of vegies with your meat you are less likely to get gout? How does

potassium

make the crystals go into solution ... and how does that affect the Ph of the

urine? I don't know the answer, but it would be an interesting kind of thing

to study.

>writes:

>

>I'm not sure what really is going on. Could you provide a reference that

>describes the accumulation of uric acid and its effects on bone?

I don't understand it myself, except that it does cause damage that

can be seen in fossils. Here is a picture:

http://141.214.6.12/cyberscope631/gout.htm

The images are from a painful lesion on the finger of a 68 year old man. Under

the scanning power, you’ll note irregular nodular deposits of acellular material

(urates) within bone and soft tissue. Some of these deposits are amorphous, some

contain empty spaces, and some contain crystalline material. The deposits are

rimmed by fibrous connective tissue and a peculiar inflammatory infiltrate. The

inflammatory cells are mononuclear with many multinucleate giant cells (best

seen on magnification of the last image but may be difficult to make out

cellular details). This is an example of granulomatous inflammation: a form of

delayed-type hypersensitivity that develops in response to some inorganic

materials (e.g. urates, insect parts), a limited spectrum of infectious agents

(e.g. tuberculosis, some fungi) and some systemic " inflammatory " diseases of

unknown cause (e.g. sarcoidosis). In this case, deposition of urate crystals in

soft tissues evoked the granulomatous inflammation. Whatever the cause,

granulomas are highly destructive

.....................

Seems like the inflammation causes destruction of the bone ... another site

talks about the destruction of cartilage, tho there is another type of gout that

is related to calcium usage that seems to be more destructive.

>Heidi wrote:

>

><<<<<Personally I'd love it if all the pseudoscience disappeared, but it's

>not gonna happen. You study science and feel comfortable with

>it, but most people want something simpler as an explanation

>that still sounds " official " . Same thing happens in politics .. a person

>who gives a realistic appraisal of a situation is often highly

>criticized by the populace, but the same populace will embrace

>some simplistic (though implausable) explanation. Hitler being

>a good example, the furor over the " ozone hole " being another.>>>>>

>_____

>

>writes:

>

>So you too are skeptical of the theory that human agency has caused holes in

>the ozone layer? I didn't realize this. Do you believe that it is caused by

>weather cycles?

>

>I think it's been basically proven that atmospheric fluorine causes a

>degradation of ozone, but it only does this significantly in certain

temperature

>ranges, and there is *loads* of atmospheric fluorine present naturally,

>independent of human agency, and it seems most probable that the holes observed

are not

>due to increases in that load of fluorine, but changes in the natural

>temperature cycle that accelerate the ozone-degradating reaction.

>

>What do you think about it?

I probably worded that incorrectly ... what I was thinking about was that

about half the congresspeople queried didn't believe there was any

hole at all, that the scientists were just kind of making it up. I don't think

they were making it up at all ... I don't know enough to say whether it's

all man-made or temperature cycles or whatever, but I'm just as glad they

are more careful about fluorocarbons now. The point being that the

folks making the laws really don't read the science. I mean, scientists

argue with each other all the time, which is fine, but there tends to

be some basis of agreement as to basic facts. But within the general

populace, you have this total ignorance of science and history ... so

someone like Hitler could say " our race is superior to any others and

all our problems are the fault of the Jews " and a lot of people would

believe him.

Heidi Jean