Re: how much calcium do we really need?

[Guest guest]

Hello ,

Try some of the " wild " plants (like Nettle and Dandelion), as well as Kale and

so on. They are not only high in calcium (if wild/organic), but in many other

vitamins/minerals/nutrients, as well.

--- tarinya2 <tarinya2@...> wrote:

> I'm debating about whether to continue my calcium supplement--I can't

> do any dairy other than ghee, and am pretty restricted in what foods I

> can eat in general due to my nursing toddler's food intolerances, so

> I'm not getting nearly the RDA of calcium in my diet. But...how

> accurate is the RDA, anyway? Do we really need as much calcium as is

> recommended? I get roughly 300-400 mg/day through diet--is that

> enough, or do I really need a calcium supplement?

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

What else are you eating? Calcium income and outgo are dependent on

other things too - vitamin D, protein, acid-base balance.

The UK has much lower calcium RDAs. I suspect dairy lobbying in the US

is the difference. As well as an incomplete understanding of how

calcium works. Mine as a post-menopausal woman is 1200 in the US and

700 in the UK. I do greens myself, occasional fermented raw dairy.

I also recommend Cordain's article on calcium and bones.

Connie

> I'm debating about whether to continue my calcium supplement--I can't

> do any dairy other than ghee, and am pretty restricted in what foods

I

> can eat in general due to my nursing toddler's food intolerances, so

> I'm not getting nearly the RDA of calcium in my diet. But...how

> accurate is the RDA, anyway? Do we really need as much calcium as is

> recommended? I get roughly 300-400 mg/day through diet--is that

> enough, or do I really need a calcium supplement?

>

>

[Guest guest]

>

> What else are you eating? Calcium income and outgo are dependent

on

> other things too - vitamin D, protein, acid-base balance.

>

> The UK has much lower calcium RDAs. I suspect dairy lobbying in

the US

> is the difference. As well as an incomplete understanding of how

> calcium works. Mine as a post-menopausal woman is 1200 in the US

and

> 700 in the UK. I do greens myself, occasional fermented raw

dairy.

Lots of pastured beef and ghee, about a serving a day each of grains

and legumes, potatoes, and a couple of servings a day each of pears

and veggies (no greens).

>

> I also recommend Cordain's article on calcium and bones.

I did a quick search for this, but since I don't agree with either

the acid/alkaline theory or the theory of evolution, I can't put a

whole lot of stock in his argument.

[Guest guest]

Interesting question. Also, it is very well known by doctors who autopsy and

do surgery that...older folks are " crunchy " when you cut into them. I

mean...many organs and the blood vessels are well calcified even in living

patients

who may live on another 20 years. That means to me: somehow and all unwanted,

there is too much calcium in the body and is " precipating " into the organs and

blood vessels. How to know how to direct the 'good calcium " into your bones and

away from other places? Beats the stuffing out of me to figure it out...

</HTML>

[Guest guest]

>

>I'm debating about whether to continue my calcium

>supplement--I can't do any dairy other than ghee, and am

>pretty restricted in what foods I can eat in general due to my

>nursing toddler's food intolerances, so I'm not getting nearly

>the RDA of calcium in my diet. But...how accurate is the RDA,

>anyway? Do we really need as much calcium as is recommended?

>I get roughly 300-400 mg/day through diet--is that enough, or

>do I really need a calcium supplement?

IMO, this is way too little calcium. Price's healthy " primitives " consumed

on average 1.5 grams per day. This is generally what I aim for. It would be

even more important if you are nursing.

Suze

[Guest guest]

--- Suze Fisher <s.fisher22@...> wrote:

> Price's healthy " primitives " consumed on average 1.5 grams per day.

> This is generally what I aim for.

Suze, how do get 1.5 g of calcium per day in your diet?

[Guest guest]

> I did a quick search for this, but since I don't agree with either

> the acid/alkaline theory or the theory of evolution, I can't put a

> whole lot of stock in his argument.

>

>

LOL and that is that. How about salmon bones then.

As to not believing in acid/alkaline, are you basing it on .... what?

Older theories that argue about whether a food is acid or not based on

its ash, as opposed to ... ?

Have you read Berardi's " covering nutritional bases " ? It's got newer

research (2003, 2002)

>

[Guest guest]

>--- Suze Fisher <s.fisher22@...> wrote:

>> Price's healthy " primitives " consumed on average 1.5 grams per day.

>> This is generally what I aim for.

>

>Suze, how do get 1.5 g of calcium per day in your diet?

Supplement, mostly. <g> I take at least 1000 mgs in supplements. Sometimes

more. The rest is from diet.

Suze

[Guest guest]

--- Suze Fisher <s.fisher22> wrote:

> > > Price's healthy " primitives " consumed on average 1.5 grams per

> > > day. This is generally what I aim for.

> >

--- <oz4caster> wrote:

> > Suze, how do get 1.5 g of calcium per day in your diet?

>

--- Suze Fisher <s.fisher22> wrote:

> Supplement, mostly. <g> I take at least 1000 mgs in supplements.

> Sometimes more. The rest is from diet.

That's cheating Suze! The people eating healthy native diets that

Price studied didn't take supplements. Yes, I know, everyone says

that food doesn't have as much nutrition any more, but I find it hard

to believe that ALL modern organic foods are not as good as ALL

ancient foods. There must be ways to produce food that mimic the

environment from the 1920's and 1930's when Price made his studies.

Isn't that what sustainable agriculture is all about?

[Guest guest]

--- In , " cbrown2008 " <cbrown2008@...>

wrote:

>

> > I did a quick search for this, but since I don't agree with either

> > the acid/alkaline theory or the theory of evolution, I can't put a

> > whole lot of stock in his argument.

> >

> >

>... As to not believing in acid/alkaline, are you basing it on ....

what?

CB,

She didn't say she didn't believe in it, only that she didn't agree

with it.

tb

>

[Guest guest]

,

> --- Suze Fisher <s.fisher22> wrote:

> > Supplement, mostly. <g> I take at least 1000 mgs in supplements.

> > Sometimes more. The rest is from diet.

>

> That's cheating Suze! The people eating healthy native diets that

> Price studied didn't take supplements. Yes, I know, everyone says

> that food doesn't have as much nutrition any more,

You must have missed the question I asked in response to one of your

posts about the difference in foods values now and say 50 years ago

based just on the FDA charts, which, IMO, are woefully deficient.

You must have also missed the link I posted where Suze was doing an

interview discussing this very topic:

The Quest for Nutrient Dense Food

http://www.westonaprice.org/farming/nutrient-dense.html

Then there is what I consider to be the most ignored chapter in NAPD,

Food is Fabricated Soil Fertility. It was not written by Weston Price

but by the great soil scientist Albrecht. Y:ou might want to

check out the Albrecht Papers. You can find many of them for free

here: http://www.soilandhealth.org/index.html

For a small fee they will even put them on CD-ROM.

And there are others like Reams, Voison, , etc.

Not everyone is saying that food today lacks the nutrition of

yesterday, but those who are serious about soil fertility certainly

are, and organics does not by itself bring the soil up to speed.

> but I find it hard

> to believe that ALL modern organic foods are not as good as ALL

> ancient foods.

Why? If modern foods, organic or otherwise, are grown in great soil,

sure, but have you found a consistent source of such food?

> There must be ways to produce food that mimic the

> environment from the 1920's and 1930's when Price made his studies.

> Isn't that what sustainable agriculture is all about?

Rhetorically sure but the proof is in the pudding.

At a personal level you might check out http://www.highbrixgardens.com/

--

" Who loves not women, wine and song remains a fool his whole life long. "

Luther

[Guest guest]

On 7/12/07, tarinya2 <tarinya2@...> wrote:

> I'm debating about whether to continue my calcium supplement--I can't

> do any dairy other than ghee, and am pretty restricted in what foods I

> can eat in general due to my nursing toddler's food intolerances, so

> I'm not getting nearly the RDA of calcium in my diet. But...how

> accurate is the RDA, anyway? Do we really need as much calcium as is

> recommended? I get roughly 300-400 mg/day through diet--is that

> enough, or do I really need a calcium supplement?

>

>

Boy that seems awfully low. Especially since what you take in is not

100% bioavailable and seems even more deficient since you are nursing.

Price's primitives took in....maybe close to 2 grams? Carey Reams, the

brix guy, taught that women in certain stages of life need *far* more

calcium than men.

What kind of calcium supplement have you been taking? What are you

getting from your diet? What about fish with the soft bones included?

Yes you need more...of course that is just a suggestion.

Ahh I see a post that said Price's groups took in 1.5 grams. I think

Reams recommended even more for nursing women, but he had a protocol

for determining what kind and how much:

" The heart of the problem is that modern foods are so

calcium-deficient that the mineral reserve of the body falls so low

that it cannot easily maintain homeostasis. This was a key reason for

Reams' strong stand that we " should eat the widest possible diet " . His

agricultural knowledge allowed him to see that a wider diet would

bring a more balanced array of " calciums " into us...Although the

preferred method of obtaining a sufficient mineral assay is to eat

higher Brix foods, most people find they need to take calcium

supplements.

" It is impossible to overstate the need for calcium, but...it is

important to make sure the calcium being used does not force the body

into an adverse pH situation. Medically-oriented physiology textbooks

detail the many ways that calcium is used by the body to neutralize

and dispose of harmful acidic products or byproducts. "

http://brixman.com/REAMS/calciums.htm

If it were me, I wouldn't skimp here.

--

" Who loves not women, wine and song remains a fool his whole life long. "

Luther

[Guest guest]

>Interesting question. Also, it is very well known by doctors

>who autopsy and do surgery that...older folks are " crunchy "

>when you cut into them. I mean...many organs and the blood

>vessels are well calcified even in living patients who may

>live on another 20 years. That means to me: somehow and all

>unwanted, there is too much calcium in the body and is

> " precipating " into the organs and blood vessels. How to know

>how to direct the 'good calcium " into your bones and

>away from other places? Beats the stuffing out of me to figure

>it out...

You don't need to figure it out because it's already been figured out.

Vitamin K2, aka Price's " X-factor " is what directs calcium to be deposited

into bones and teeth and NOT deposited into soft tissue. The modern diet is

deficient in K2 so no surprise at all that older folks are " crunchy " .

had a fantastic article on K2/X-factor in the last Wise Traditions.

Can't recommend it highly enough.

Suze

[Guest guest]

--- <slethnobotanist@...> wrote:

> Not everyone is saying that food today lacks the nutrition of

> yesterday, but those who are serious about soil fertility certainly

> are, and organics does not by itself bring the soil up to speed.

,

I recognize that much of the food produced today is poor in nutrient

quality, especially factory farmed foods. I also recognize that

organic alone does not necessarily mean nutrient dense. The point I

was trying to make is that some foods today are likely to have just as

much nutrient density as in the past, especially those foods produced

by farms that seek to optimize nutrition in food. And yes, finding

such food consistently is definitely not easy these days. But that

doesn't mean we shouldn't try. The brix technique does sound like a

quick but possibly dirty way to make this kind of assessment, but most

of us can't afford extremely expensive nutrient measurements. And as

far as refined supplements are concerned, I think they should only be

used for treating specific health problems when dietary changes do not

seem to help.

I also suspect that there may be differences between nutrient

measurement methods used in Price's day and methods that are now used.

To be compatible we would need to use the same methods to evaluate

today's foods. Has there been any assessment of the accuracy of those

measurements from 70 to 80 years ago?

It would be interesting to see measurements conducted using Price's

methods on today's foods. I'm sure there would be a lot of

variability, just as he found in his day. I also wonder how much

variability occurred in the foods that Price measured from people

eating healthy native diets. And it would be nice to know

specifically which foods he analyzed were so high in nutrients and how

these foods were produced (I need to finish reading NAPD - maybe I've

missed it so far). I suspect there must have been a lot of estimation

and extrapolation to come up with daily estimates of dietary intake.

My guess is that the uncertainty may be quite large, both in the

nutrient measurements and in the extrapolation and estimation of

dietary intakes.

[Guest guest]

You are correct, ma'am. Sorry . But I am curious what you mean

by " don't agree. " Never met anyone who doesn't at least give a nod to

its doing something.

Like, do you think the body doesn't care, or the body can't be acid or

base, or you don't agree with lists where one says millet is, and

another says millet is not, acid-forming, or, ??

Connie

> > > I did a quick search for this, but since I don't agree with

either

> > > the acid/alkaline theory or the theory of evolution, I can't put

a

> > > whole lot of stock in his argument.

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

,

> ,

>

> I recognize that much of the food produced today is poor in nutrient

> quality, especially factory farmed foods. I also recognize that

> organic alone does not necessarily mean nutrient dense. The point I

> was trying to make is that some foods today are likely to have just as

> much nutrient density as in the past, especially those foods produced

> by farms that seek to optimize nutrition in food.

Yes I realize that. I am wondering on what basis can you make such a

statement? I know what some folks are trying to do and say they are

doing but it doesn't seem to measure up, no matter the rhetoric.

Nutrient dense food is few and far between, even among those who seek

to optimize nutrition. The organic movement has been at it for nearly

50 years, and even if you allow for modest increases in some

nutrients, it is nowhere near optimizing nutrition in food, although

you wouldn't know it from the rhetoric (or the price).

There is a growing " beyond organic " movement that has arisen precisely

because of this problem. IIRC both Reams and Albrecht were death on

this (at the time) fledging movement but I could be wrong on this

point.

> And yes, finding

> such food consistently is definitely not easy these days.

That's an understatement.

> But that

> doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

Who said anything about not trying? That is the whole point of the

links I posted.

> The brix technique does sound like a

> quick but possibly dirty way to make this kind of assessment, but most

> of us can't afford extremely expensive nutrient measurements.

You probably mean using a refractometer. And yes it is a way for the

average person to assess something that they would have no other way

to determine. What makes you think measuring such is expensive? $40

and you are in business.

> And as

> far as refined supplements are concerned, I think they should only be

> used for treating specific health problems when dietary changes do not

> seem to help.

I'm sympathetic to what you are saying and I went back and forth on

the whole supplement issue for years *until* I started studying soil

fertility. While one might argue as to how to supplement, the state of

the food supply, at least in North America, is such that a person who

does not supplement in one way or another might need to hire a

different chef.

> I also suspect that there may be differences between nutrient

> measurement methods used in Price's day and methods that are now used.

> To be compatible we would need to use the same methods to evaluate

> today's foods. Has there been any assessment of the accuracy of those

> measurements from 70 to 80 years ago?

I don't know but I don't think compatibility is the issue. I would

imagine the techniques Price used aren't practical for most of us (or

most people then). His techniques were probably " high end " and today's

techniques are probably " high end " as well and not practical for most

of us.

There are many measurements high brix farmers can and do use, most

beyond the average person, but for practical purposes, a refractometer

is all a non-farmer really needs. It will give us the general

direction we need to make informed choices.

> It would be interesting to see measurements conducted using Price's

> methods on today's foods. I'm sure there would be a lot of

> variability, just as he found in his day. I also wonder how much

> variability occurred in the foods that Price measured from people

> eating healthy native diets. And it would be nice to know

> specifically which foods he analyzed were so high in nutrients and how

> these foods were produced (I need to finish reading NAPD - maybe I've

> missed it so far). I suspect there must have been a lot of estimation

> and extrapolation to come up with daily estimates of dietary intake.

> My guess is that the uncertainty may be quite large, both in the

> nutrient measurements and in the extrapolation and estimation of

> dietary intakes.

One of the problems with the FDA is that they want you to believe all

food is the same, even though their analysis is for a particular food

at a given point in time and we know nothing of how that food arrived

where it did - when it did - and what happened after it got there (let

alone where it came from in the first place). A refractometer allows

you to tell something now, not later after it has been mediated

through who knows what.

Albrecht wrote how on one side of the street you can have a field

devastated by drought and across the street a field that is perfectly

unaffected despite being exposed to the same external conditions. And

he knew nothing of brix. Whatever variations occur I would rather

discover them on my side of the equation rather than on the lab side

of the equation. A refractometer empowers you now, at the point of

sale, rather than depending on some charts to tell you what *might* be

in your food.

--

" Who loves not women, wine and song remains a fool his whole life long. "

Luther

[Guest guest]

Connie,

> You are correct, ma'am. Sorry . But I am curious what you mean

> by " don't agree. " Never met anyone who doesn't at least give a nod to

> its doing something.

Price thought it was wrong, although I am to lazy at the moment to

look it up, although I have quoted him on the issue several times.

Nonetheless, one really needs to define what they are talking about

because there are very different conceptions as to what this issue is

all about.

--

" Who loves not women, wine and song remains a fool his whole life long. "

Luther

[Guest guest]

My 4 cups of milk in the morning gets me 1100 mg of calcium. (I drink milk

in lieu of coffee or tea.) Depending on what else I eat for the day I well

exceed the average primitive's 1.5 g/day with no additional supplementation

at all.

-Lana

On 7/12/07, Suze Fisher <s.fisher22@...> wrote:

>

>

> >--- Suze Fisher <s.fisher22@...> wrote:

> >> Price's healthy " primitives " consumed on average 1.5 grams per day.

> >> This is generally what I aim for.

> >

> >Suze, how do get 1.5 g of calcium per day in your diet?

>

> Supplement, mostly. <g> I take at least 1000 mgs in supplements. Sometimes

> more. The rest is from diet.

>

> Suze

>

[Guest guest]

,

> > I also suspect that there may be differences between nutrient

> > measurement methods used in Price's day and methods that are now used.

> > To be compatible we would need to use the same methods to evaluate

> > today's foods. Has there been any assessment of the accuracy of those

> > measurements from 70 to 80 years ago?

> I don't know but I don't think compatibility is the issue. I would

> imagine the techniques Price used aren't practical for most of us (or

> most people then). His techniques were probably " high end " and today's

> techniques are probably " high end " as well and not practical for most

> of us.

They aren't practical for consumers to use, but they are essential to

testing the hypothesis that nutrient quality has declined. Simply

looking at today's databases and databases from Price's time is an

almost meaningless comparison becuase different techniques are being

used. We can't use today's methods on food in Price's time, but we

can still use the methods from Price's time on today's foods.

I'm sure that there is an average decline in nutrient density. But,

comparing databases from now and then does not sufficiently

demonstrate this, nor does it tell us how much of the observed gap is

true decline.

Chris

[Guest guest]

--- <oz4caster> wrote:

> > The point I was trying to make is that some foods today are likely

> > to have just as much nutrient density as in the past,

> > especially those foods produced by farms that seek to optimize

> > nutrition in food.

>

--- <slethnobotanist@...> wrote:

> Yes I realize that. I am wondering on what basis can you make such a

> statement? I know what some folks are trying to do and say they are

> doing but it doesn't seem to measure up, no matter the rhetoric.

> Nutrient dense food is few and far between, even among those who

> seek to optimize nutrition. The organic movement has been at it for

> nearly 50 years, and even if you allow for modest increases in some

> nutrients, it is nowhere near optimizing nutrition in food, although

> you wouldn't know it from the rhetoric (or the price).

,

I guess I have to believe that foods nowadays are at least adequate in

nutrition on average, or how else could some people still live to be

over 100? If today's foods are so much worse, than 100 years ago, I

would think no one could live more than 60 or 70 years. That is

obviously not the case. And I don't believe that people who make it

to 100 are just " lucky " or just have " good genetics " . While luck and

genetics certainly do play a role, I suspect it is only a minor role.

And I think people are reaching 100+ years these days DESPITE " modern

medicine " , which is probably taking many years off of most people's lives.

> > The brix technique does sound like a quick but possibly dirty way

> > to make this kind of assessment, but most of us can't afford

> > extremely expensive nutrient measurements.

>

> You probably mean using a refractometer. And yes it is a way for the

> average person to assess something that they would have no other way

> to determine. What makes you think measuring such is expensive? $40

> and you are in business.

I guess I didn't word that very well. I meant to say that the brix

measurement by refractometer is very cheap, though much less

informative, than very expensive detailed nutrient meausurements. I

wonder if it might be possible to shine a broad spectrum light on a

food and measure the reflected intensity at key wavelengths to

determine the some of the chemical composition?

> > And as far as refined supplements are concerned, I think they

> > should only be used for treating specific health problems when

> > dietary changes do not seem to help.

>

> I'm sympathetic to what you are saying and I went back and forth on

> the whole supplement issue for years *until* I started studying soil

> fertility. While one might argue as to how to supplement, the state

> of the food supply, at least in North America, is such that a person

> who does not supplement in one way or another might need to hire a

> different chef.

I suspect there are plenty of centenarians who have never taken a

supplement. That's not to say that there might not be some benefit in

some situations, but I don't think they are necessary routinely. The

only exception I might make is high vitamin CLO, which I view as a

nutrient dense food, but some may consider it to be a supplement.

[Guest guest]

> >

> > > I did a quick search for this, but since I don't agree with

either

> > > the acid/alkaline theory or the theory of evolution, I can't

put a

> > > whole lot of stock in his argument.

> > >

> > >

>

> >... As to not believing in acid/alkaline, are you basing it

on ....

> what?

>

>

> CB,

>

> She didn't say she didn't believe in it, only that she didn't agree

> with it.

> tb

> >

>

It's really the same thing...if I don't believe in something, I'm

not going to agree with it. If I believe in it, I'll probably agree

with it, although whether I want to agree with it or not may be

another story! There's probably exceptions but I can't think of any

off the top of my head.

[Guest guest]

>

> > I did a quick search for this, but since I don't agree with

either

> > the acid/alkaline theory or the theory of evolution, I can't put

a

> > whole lot of stock in his argument.

> >

> >

>

> LOL and that is that. How about salmon bones then.

I do eat salmon occasionally...it's awfully expensive, though.

>

> As to not believing in acid/alkaline, are you basing it on ....

what?

> Older theories that argue about whether a food is acid or not

based on

> its ash, as opposed to ... ?

The ash thing, and it just doesn't make sense to me. It doesn't

seem like the people Price studied tried to eat a proper ratio of

acid to alkaline foods, especially since Cordain was saying you

should eat lots of fruits and veggies, and it doesn't appear to me

that most of the native people's did that. I'm open to looking at

it more, though, if you have any good links.

>

> Have you read Berardi's " covering nutritional bases " ? It's got

newer

> research (2003, 2002)

No...do you happen to have a link?

[Guest guest]

>

> You are correct, ma'am. Sorry . But I am curious what you

mean

> by " don't agree. " Never met anyone who doesn't at least give a nod

to

> its doing something.

>

> Like, do you think the body doesn't care, or the body can't be

acid or

> base, or you don't agree with lists where one says millet is, and

> another says millet is not, acid-forming, or, ??

I think the pH of the body is affecting by the overall state of

health and by what's going on in the body nutritionally, but not

really by individual foods unless those foods are causing a

particular reaction (like if you're allergic to a food).

[Guest guest]

>

> What kind of calcium supplement have you been taking? What are you

> getting from your diet? What about fish with the soft bones included?

>

Calcium carbonate...not the best form I know. I'm definitely

absorbing enough of it to make me need more magnesium, though. I can

do fish sometimes but A) they're expensive and I can't get fresh fish

here unless DH goes fishing (middle of Montana), and B)they're high in

amines unless they're really fresh and my nursling and I both have

problems with amines.

What types of calcium supplements are good? Is eating a cup of so of

bone broth a day a good source of calcium? (Assuming I can go back to

doing that after my DD weans...bone broth is high in amines, too,

especially if it's cooked for a long time.)

[Guest guest]

IMHO, Price's natives were getting enough alkalizing minerals in their diets

that it didn't matter what foods they were eating. The whole alkaline/acid

ash thing gets a lot more important for those who have pancreatic

insufficiency - since they can not properly neutralize the higher acid foods

coming out of the stomach (either due to a bicarbonate deficiency, a zinc

deficiency or some other malfunction in the buffering system the pancreas

controls). But for someone who has always had a good mineral intake like

the natives, pancreatic insufficiency (at least in terms of the buffering

system) is practically non-existant.

I have been following an acid/alkaline balance right now as a temporary way

to compensate for my pancreatic issues because my poor duodenum literally

burned after a high acid meals and an acidic duodenum quickly causes small

bowel bacterial overgrowth in addition to hindering your ability to absorb

certain nutrients (most nutrients have a small PH range in which they can be

absorbed). Now that I have my duodenum in a state in which it can properly

absorb minerals: I am now weaning away from acid/alkaline balance in favor

of a higher mineral intake which seems to be accomplishing the same thing,

but until my mineral intake is optimal (in terms of native diets, not the

USDA which I already meet/exceed) I will still follow the acid/alkaline

balance to some degree (based on my symptoms).

Speaking of mineral intakes: I've been searching the archives for a post

that came a while back that listed not just the calcium of the native diet -

but also the sodium and magnesium. I think these values were seperated by

native group. Does anyone have this post bookmarked? I can't seem to find

it even when searching on onibasu.

Thanks!

-Lana

P.S. By the way, fermentation alkalizes foods due to the formation of

amines. So whole grains being on the acid side of the list isn't indicative

of how the natives typically processed them. Same thing with milk -

fermentation reduces the acid content not to mention pasteurized/homoginized

milk is far more acid than its raw counterpart. (And goat's milk is less

acid than cow's - Price noted some of the native groups consumed both

milks.)

--

" There is nothing more useful than sun and salt. " - Latin proverb

The ash thing, and it just doesn't make sense to me. It doesn't

> seem like the people Price studied tried to eat a proper ratio of

> acid to alkaline foods, especially since Cordain was saying you

> should eat lots of fruits and veggies, and it doesn't appear to me

> that most of the native people's did that. I'm open to looking at

> it more, though, if you have any good links.

>