Exeggutor, I was providing ample evidence that your initial claim of "acidic diets" leeching minerals from the bones was incorrect. I don't support eating very high protein diets.


"Of course other factors such as exercise and stress are important for overall health but diet is key."

Yes, diet is key. That doesn't mean carbohydrate percentage is key.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/23/2015 08:58PM by jtprindl.

fresh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Brilliant. thank you.
>
> the first batch of studies that came up were all
> positive, whether whole avo or oil.
>
> i was trying to see if there were any that showed
> negative impact on endothelial, as you showed with
> oil.


Not so fast. I read one of them a few minutes ago. It's free.

Comparison of the effects on lipoproteins and
apolipoproteins of a diet high in monounsaturated fatty acids,
enriched with avocado, and a high-carbohydrate diet

David M Coiquhoun, Denise Moores, Shawn M Somerset, and Julie A Humphries etc.

Am J Clin Nutr October 1992 vol. 56 no. 4 671-677

Notes:
1. Supported by a grant from the Australian Avocado Growers’ Federation
2. Only 4 of their 27 plasma lipid measures achieved statistical significance

I don't think a good-looking abstract provides the whole story here. I wish that AJCN were pickier about what it published.

Some food for thought:

click here

A quote straight from the article:

"Studies by Dr. Bess Dawson-Hughes, at the Jean Mayer U.S.D.A. Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University, and collaborators have demonstrated the acid-neutralizing ability of fruits and vegetables and the crucial role they can play in maintaining healthy bones.

The researchers note that fruits and vegetables are predominantly metabolized to alkaline bicarbonate, whereas proteins and cereal grains are metabolized to acids. The more protein people consume beyond the body’s true needs, the more acidic their blood can become and the more alkaline compounds are needed to neutralize the acid."

There is plenty of research opposing what you have posted.

Actually, carbohydrate percentage is key.
The percentage of carbohydrate eaten affects protein and fat ratio intakes.




jtprindl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Exeggutor, I was providing ample evidence that
> your initial claim of "acidic diets" leeching
> minerals from the bones was incorrect. I don't
> support eating very high protein diets.
>
>
> "Of course other factors such as exercise and
> stress are important for overall health but diet
> is key."
>
> Yes, diet is key. That doesn't mean carbohydrate
> percentage is key.

"There is plenty of research opposing what you have posted."

No there isn't - thinking food affects blood pH is a misunderstanding of basic human physiology. Blood pH is tightly regulated by the kidney's and lungs and only becomes acidic when they are not functioning properly. Again, I do not advocate high protein diets, I was simply showing how "acidic diets" do not leech minerals from the bones.

"Actually, carbohydrate percentage is key."

What evidence suggests that higher carbohydrate intake increases longevity?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/23/2015 09:40PM by jtprindl.

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

> [onlinelibrary.wiley.com]
>
> > 0515/full
> >
> > [www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov] -

> > [www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov] -


> [www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]
>

not so fast.

These papers do not refute the acid-ash hypothesis. They refute the utility of SAA to measure it.


See Thorpe and Evans
[nutritionreviews.oxfordjournals.org]


"Fenton et al.182 performed a meta-analysis of the influence
of phosphate intake on calcium balance, finding no
net effect across 12 studies of acceptable methodological
quality. Those authors argue the result refutes the acidash
hypothesis, since phosphate is included in those
dietary components thought to influence NAE.1 It has
been known for many years, however, that the role of
phosphorus in calcium balance is more complex than
predicted based only on its role in the diet acid load.183,184
In 1981, Linkswiler et al.185 reviewed consistent evidence
that phosphorus intake depressed urine calcium loss.
Heaney et al.186–188 have since shown repeatedly that phosphorus
also increases fecal calcium loss, specifically
endogenous calcium loss through secretions into the
intestine, such that any gain at the kidney is lost in the
intestine.

These unique effects of phosphorus are not observed
with other dietary acid-ash components, and may have an
opposite or no effect on bone in spite of its role in predicting
NAE. This does not refute the negative role of an
acidic diet in bone health, but rather calls into question
the utility of NAE prediction equations that include
phosphorus or other nutrients with multiple influences
on bone. In a cross-sectional study of postmenopausal
women,19 a negative influence was observed of diet acid
load from SAA on bone density of the spine after adjusting
for total dietary protein. No similar association
was observed with the NEAP or PRAL, which would
theoretically also represent the diet acid load. The PRAL
accurately predicts change in NAE induced by diet, but
includes phosphorus, magnesium, calcium, and total
protein in its estimation. Each of these nutrients
appears to have unique, non-acid-related roles in bone
health.169,170,189,190 Similarly, estimated NEAP38 accurately
predicts NAE but does not account for possible positive
roles of protein independent of the acid load from dietary
protein.44

For general prediction of NAE, these equations
are superior to the use of SAA alone; however, when the
effect of the diet acid load on bone health is specifically
investigated, it seems prudent to test individual, rather
than aggregate, effects of SAA, total protein, potassium
(as a surrogate for organic base) and minerals which may
influence bone health through alternate pathways."

"There is plenty of research opposing what you have posted."

No there isn't
----
Woow the fact that you can respond with in several minutes
with out really looking through the research really proves that I'm wrong.
Congratulations.

"Actually, carbohydrate percentage is key."

What evidence suggests that higher carbohydrate intake increases longevity?
----
Again, please research thoroughly. Including research subjective to your ideology.

If you're sincerely interested, then by all means, please research for yourself.
However, I feel more as if you're interested in being right and arguing than anything else.

I encourage anyone reading this board to do their own research
and make an informed decision for yourself.

"Woow the fact that you can respond with in several minutes
with out really looking through the research really proves that I'm wrong.
Congratulations. smiling smiley"

Has nothing to do with you or myself, it's basic human physiology. Our blood pH is tightly regulated and always slightly alkaline, regardless of the previous meal we just ate. As long as you're kidney's and lungs are functioning properly, doesn't matter if you're on the SAD or raw food diet, you will not have an acidic blood pH nor will calcium be taken from your bones.

"If you're sincerely interested, then by all means, please research for yourself.
However, I feel more as if you're interested in being right and arguing than anything else."

I make a simple request asking you to validate your claims and this is your response? I've done plenty of research. Nothing suggests that high-carb diets directly increase longevity and nothing suggests that the Okinawan's live a long time because of the percentage of carbs they eat.

"I make a simple request asking you to validate your claims and this is your response?"

Yea, pretty much.
Arugula was nice enough to provide you with some information.

Again, you are repeating information I have already stated.

Exeggutor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You forgot to mention the part about how the body
> has to leach minerals out of the bones to
> neutralize the acid affect of acidic foods. If the
> body didn't keep the blood ph alkaline, you would
> die.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/23/2015 10:32PM by Exeggutor.

"Again, you are repeating information I have already stated."

No, I'm saying the exact opposite of what you have stated.

Not really. I was agreeing with you that the blood ph is always alkaline.
You can't even agree with me when I'm agreeing with you? Lol Im so done.

Quote:

"Our blood pH is tightly regulated and always slightly alkaline, regardless of the previous meal we just ate."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/23/2015 10:36PM by Exeggutor.

"Not really. I was agreeing with you that the blood ph is always alkaline."

I was referring to minerals being leeched from the bones.

"Yea, pretty much."

Or you simply cannot validate your claims.

"Or you simply cannot validate your claims."

Arugula did a good job of it for me
Which you have interestingly made no comment upon.


arugula Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> [onlinelibrary.wiley.com]
>
> >
> > > 0515/full
> > >
> > > [www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov] -
>
> > > [www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov] -
>
>
> >
> [www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]
>
> >
>
> not so fast.
>
> These papers do not refute the acid-ash
> hypothesis. They refute the utility of SAA to
> measure it.
>
>
> See Thorpe and Evans
> [nutritionreviews.oxfordjournals.org]
> /nutritionreviews/69/4/215.full.pdf
>
>
> "Fenton et al.182 performed a meta-analysis of the
> influence
> of phosphate intake on calcium balance, finding
> no
> net effect across 12 studies of acceptable
> methodological
> quality. Those authors argue the result refutes
> the acidash
> hypothesis, since phosphate is included in those
> dietary components thought to influence NAE.1 It
> has
> been known for many years, however, that the role
> of
> phosphorus in calcium balance is more complex
> than
> predicted based only on its role in the diet acid
> load.183,184
> In 1981, Linkswiler et al.185 reviewed consistent
> evidence
> that phosphorus intake depressed urine calcium
> loss.
> Heaney et al.186–188 have since shown repeatedly
> that phosphorus
> also increases fecal calcium loss, specifically
> endogenous calcium loss through secretions into
> the
> intestine, such that any gain at the kidney is
> lost in the
> intestine.
>
> These unique effects of phosphorus are not
> observed
> with other dietary acid-ash components, and may
> have an
> opposite or no effect on bone in spite of its role
> in predicting
> NAE. This does not refute the negative role of an
> acidic diet in bone health, but rather calls into
> question
> the utility of NAE prediction equations that
> include
> phosphorus or other nutrients with multiple
> influences
> on bone. In a cross-sectional study of
> postmenopausal
> women,19 a negative influence was observed of diet
> acid
> load from SAA on bone density of the spine after
> adjusting
> for total dietary protein. No similar association
> was observed with the NEAP or PRAL, which would
> theoretically also represent the diet acid load.
> The PRAL
> accurately predicts change in NAE induced by diet,
> but
> includes phosphorus, magnesium, calcium, and
> total
> protein in its estimation. Each of these
> nutrients
> appears to have unique, non-acid-related roles in
> bone
> health.169,170,189,190 Similarly, estimated NEAP38
> accurately
> predicts NAE but does not account for possible
> positive
> roles of protein independent of the acid load from
> dietary
> protein.44
>
> For general prediction of NAE, these equations
> are superior to the use of SAA alone; however,
> when the
> effect of the diet acid load on bone health is
> specifically
> investigated, it seems prudent to test individual,
> rather
> than aggregate, effects of SAA, total protein,
> potassium
> (as a surrogate for organic base) and minerals
> which may
> influence bone health through alternate pathways."

"Arugula did a good job of it for me smiling smiley
Which you have interestingly made no comment upon."

1.) I was referring to high-carbs and longevity.
2.) Her comment in no way supports that calcium is leeched from bones on "acidic" diets. It also didn't address every one of the studies I mentioned.

>I was referring to high-carbs and longevity.

You might want to read this.
[foodandhealth.com]


excerpts:
If high-CHO diets are more atherogenic than diets higher in fat, what are we to make of several studies that have reported that very-low-fat, near-vegetarian diets (VLFNV) cause regression of atherosclerosis in most patients who already have advanced CAD?[2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

And if diets higher in CHO do result in a more atherogenic lipoprotein profile (as the Stanford group suggested), how can we reconcile such a claim with the results of a 12 year study. This study found that a VLFNV diet not only greatly reduced deaths from CAD but also markedly reduced overall mortality in 50 older subjects (all of whom had had a previous heart attack) compared to the 50 patients in the control group who maintained a typical high-fat American diet?[7]

Population studies of people consuming high-CHO diets have shown that CAD is far less common in those populations than it is in America and other countries where high-fat diets are the norm. However, in these populations not only is the intake of dietary CHO higher but the intake of SFA and cholesterol are much lower and fiber intake is often much higher than they are in Americans.

when a VLFNV diet, that is high in fiber, is fed ad-libitum to patients at high risk of CAD, that the changes in blood lipids are usually favorable. Indeed, in many patients such a diet leads to regression of atherosclerotic plaque.

The reason a lower HDL-C on a low-fat diet is not necessarily more atherogenic may be because it has been shown that the fractional clearance rate of cholesterol is different on a VLF diet than it is on a diet higher in fat.[11] This means that it is likely that the amount of cholesterol transported back to the liver from the arteries may not be impaired on a high-CHO diet despite a lower HDL-C level. The return of cholesterol from tissues and blood to the liver is known as reverse cholesterol transport. In animals this reverse cholesterol transport was not impaired despite a much lower HDL-C on a high-CHO diet compared to a high-fat diet.[12]

So while HDL-C does often fall initially when most people first adopt a VLFNV diet, it is not clear that this lower HDL-C level necessarily increases the risk of CAD. Furthermore, in most patients, the adoption of a VLFNV diet will result in weight loss over the long run and this weight loss will eventually result in HDL-C returning to baseline levels (or even higher) levels in most patients.

Blood lipids are simply the messenger about what is going on in the artery wall. The message that patients are looking for from their health professionals is how does one prevent or reverse atherosclerosis and CAD. The Stanford researchers appear to be so preoccupied with the messenger (short-term changes in fasting blood lipids which don't always get the message straight) that they have lost sight of the message. New medical technology may soon make it possible to accurately measure the health and function of arteries. Research should now be shifting from what is happening to fasting blood lipids to what is happening to the arteries themselves.

refs available at the link.

-----

The only interventions showing efficacy on the arteries themselves are the very low fat vegan or near vegan ones. At some point this will sink in.

When the "virgin" coconut oil/avocado group proves to provide faster clearance, that's when I'll increase my fat intake. There is no such evidence at this time. I doubt that there will ever be. But I can't predict the future.

jtprindl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> 2.) Her comment in no way supports that calcium is
> leeched from bones on "acidic" diets. It also
> didn't address every one of the studies I
> mentioned.


1.2. same author, same problems.

3. written after the paper I cited but uses the same sources, basically Fenton, and has the same problems. It is clear that you have not actually read it because you would not have made your comment numbered 2.) above if you had actually read Hanley and Whiting.

It is clearly a waste of effort responding to your "questions" and "comments."

I will be happy to answer questions about and/or discuss full papers that you have actually read, if you have genuine curiosity. But that is not what I am sensing in your posts. I don't think that anyone else is sensing that, either.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/23/2015 11:18PM by arugula.

"The only interventions showing efficacy on the arteries themselves are the very low fat vegan or near vegan ones. At some point this will sink in."

1.) This doesn't mean raw, "high-fat" (still a useless argument because this term is not defined) diets promote atherosclerosis. If you're eating more carbs, you're most likely eating more fruits and vegetables. That doesn't mean the carbs are responsible for the effects, could be various phytochemicals found in fruits and vegetables. But like I've said in the past, you could theoretically eat "high-fat" and still eat lots of fruits and vegetables.

2.) It didn't consider O3:O6 ratios, cooked versus raw, or different dietary strategies. For example, if you take two individuals on "high-fat" diets with everything being equal except one person consumes garlic and curcumin everyday, the person consuming these will very likely have better arterial functioning.

arugula Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> jtprindl Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > 2.) Her comment in no way supports that calcium
> is
> > leeched from bones on "acidic" diets. It also
> > didn't address every one of the studies I
> > mentioned.
>
>
> 1.2. same author, same problems.
>
> 3. written after the paper I cited but uses the
> same sources, basically Fenton, and has the same
> problems. It is clear that you have not actually
> read it because you would not have made your
> comment numbered 2.) above if you had actually
> read Hanley and Whiting.
>
> It is clearly a waste of effort responding to your
> "questions" and "comments."
>
> I will be happy to answer questions about and/or
> discuss full papers that you have actually read,
> if you have genuine curiosity. But that is not
> what I am sensing in your posts. I don't think
> that anyone else is sensing that, either.


The net conclusion is that there is zero evidence that "acidic" diets leech minerals from bones.

jtprindl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> arugula Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > jtprindl Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> >
> > > 2.) Her comment in no way supports that
> calcium
> > is
> > > leeched from bones on "acidic" diets. It also
> > > didn't address every one of the studies I
> > > mentioned.
> >
> >
> > 1.2. same author, same problems.
> >
> > 3. written after the paper I cited but uses the
> > same sources, basically Fenton, and has the
> same
> > problems. It is clear that you have not
> actually
> > read it because you would not have made your
> > comment numbered 2.) above if you had actually
> > read Hanley and Whiting.
> >
> > It is clearly a waste of effort responding to
> your
> > "questions" and "comments."
> >
> > I will be happy to answer questions about
> and/or
> > discuss full papers that you have actually
> read,
> > if you have genuine curiosity. But that is not
> > what I am sensing in your posts. I don't think
> > that anyone else is sensing that, either.
>
>
> The net conclusion is that there is zero evidence
> that "acidic" diets leech minerals from bones.


Yep, there is more to the story than that. A good nutrition plan tailored to various eating plans is the key to stopping calcium leeching. After reading many of those types of studies, that is the take away message l have been getting. That is why l tailor my diet in a very particular way and bring in certain foods at certain times in certain combinations.

It is important to try and look at all the factors going on and try to avoid being drawn into partial ideas talked about in the research...this takes a lot of research to be able to do.

www.thesproutarian.com



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/24/2015 12:17AM by The Sproutarian Man.

"Yep, there is more to the story than that. A good nutrition plan tailored to various eating plans is the key to stopping calcium leeching. After reading many of those types of studies, that is the take away message l have been getting. That is why l tailor my diet in a very particular way and bring in certain foods at certain times in certain combinations."

Are you aware of any studies that show that calcium is leeched from bones without suboptimal or failing kidney/lung functioning? Seems like this is the primary factor.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/24/2015 12:23AM by jtprindl.

jtprindl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Yep, there is more to the story than that. A good
> nutrition plan tailored to various eating plans is
> the key to stopping calcium leeching. After
> reading many of those types of studies, that is
> the take away message l have been getting. That is
> why l tailor my diet in a very particular way and
> bring in certain foods at certain times in certain
> combinations."
>
> Are you aware of any studies that show that
> calcium is leeched from bones without suboptimal
> or failing kidney/lung functioning? Seems like
> this is the primary factor.

I am. The whole concept of calcium leeching and acidity is quite complex. The ideas are in my head, but not so easy to write about because there are so many things that can come into it. Don't forget that calcium can be leeched in various ways, but blaming diet acidity as the sole cause is to not see the bigger picture of what seems to be going on. That is the reason why l have been put off writing something on the alkaline/acid diet, it is going to be so difficult and the hardest diet essay l have ever attempted. An essay would take months to write.

There is also a paper written about meat eating cultures that never suffered these diseases attributed to acid diets, but l am sure that the opposite is probably true too. Lots of complex things are going on, and it is also very individual.

www.thesproutarian.com

"I am."

Are they rare or quite common (calcium leeching outside of kidney/lung malfunction)? What other factors outside of diet are you referring to?

Exactly why I stopped trying.
Agreed.

arugula Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is clearly a waste of effort responding to your
> "questions" and "comments."
>
> I will be happy to answer questions about and/or
> discuss full papers that you have actually read,
> if you have genuine curiosity. But that is not
> what I am sensing in your posts. I don't think
> that anyone else is sensing that, either.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/24/2015 01:51AM by Exeggutor.

Thank you for acknowledging that calcium is indeed leeched
due to diet.

The Sproutarian Man Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>A good
> nutrition plan tailored to various eating plans is
> the key to stopping calcium leeching.

I believe that calcium balance is in the negative in the course of osteoporosis.

I also believe that diet has an effect and that f+v are important.

But I also believe that pH is not the entire story.

When pregnant women do not take in enough calcium, the growing fetus takes what it requires from the host mother's bones. This process is not solely due to pH or calcium intake, for that matter.

Maybe they need another metric.

A lot of people with normal kidney and lung functions get osteoporosis.

Hormones, exercise, and smoking also play a role.

Calcium balance is what matters. Many things can tip it into the negative.

"Thank you for acknowledging that calcium is indeed leeched
due to diet."

Where did he say it was due to diet? And even if it was due to diet, where is the evidence that it's caused by acidity?

"Exactly why I stopped trying.
Agreed."

All you did was run away when asked for evidence to confirm your claims.

"A lot of people with normal kidney and lung functions get osteoporosis."

Yes but they most likely didn't get osteoporosis because their blood was too acidic. Could be due to various nutrient deficiencies and/or lack of weight-bearing exercise.

>because their blood was too acidic

you're right about the blood ph, but it
doesn't need to be the blood that is acidic that causes shifts in calcium stores.

Dear Sproutarian Man, your Inbox is full so i could not send private message. I am inspired by your post on sun-gazing. Now I travel daily to the
beach about 13 km away to sun-gaze in the evening. As you said, I increased my time abruptly and now reached 30 min in just 2 months. But now i have tickling sensations on my palms and soles. not painful but vibrating. i have no one to ask doubts. Hope to hear any suggestions from you. Hope you are my godsent guide in this practice.

Thankfully
Haridev
kerala, India

A negative statement.

We are not on a debate team.
I don't have to do anything.
And I don't like to argue.

Then again, I don't really care what people think of me either lol.
If that is your opinion, so be it.

jtprindl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> All you did was run away when asked for evidence
> to confirm your claims.

Since the domain name for this expired yesterday The Acid / Alkaline Mystery Solved by Stephen Cherniske, M.Sc, people might want to have a read of this article by Chris Kresser

The Acid-Alkaline Myth: Part 1
[chriskresser.com]


The Acid-Alkaline Myth: Part 2
[chriskresser.com]


You also might want to read the comments below the articles by James (Sloane).