Hi, wanted to start a thread where people can share their views on how adopting a primarily raw foods diet has helped to change their understanding of what good health means, and how to achieve it. While I certainly agree that emotional and spiritual happiness are primordial for overall good health, I would like to discuss in this thread the more food oriented/physical aspects of good health.

Personally, through my interest of raw foods, I have come to respect more fully the innate ability to heal itself that my body has. It has radically changed my understanding of modern medicine, which I now see as just treating the symptoms of disease rather than attempting to cure. The point is now I can see the futility of this approach, as the only thing that will heal the body is the body itself, if we allow it to by provding biologically appropriate food. Subject to limitations of course, nothing in Nature is totally perfect.

My view on medical drugs, vaccinations, the interactions of bacteria and viruses with my body has changed fundamentally after becoming interest in raw foods. I'm particularly interested in the fundamental issues regarding the debate on the germ theory and the pleomorphism theory ie the Pasteur/Bechamp debate. How bacteria and viruses may not be inherently "pathogenic" but only become so under the "appropriate" conditions. An example is the results in The China Study book, where Dr. Campbell fed massive amounts of mycotoxins (labelled a carcinogen in the medical literature) to rats on different diets and found that those on a lower plant protein diet developed far fewer (almost none) tumours than those on a high casein (milk protein) diet. Any information relating to further studies of this nature would be greatly appreciated.

So I would encourage people to share their views on how raw foods has shaped or altered significantly their understanding of good health.

Cheers,
J





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/09/2007 02:56PM by Jose.

OK - for starters, I'm coming to believe that alkaline is everything! I recently read Alkalize or Die by Baroody. I don't know that I believe everything he says, but the fundamental theory seems right on. Diseases can't thrive in an alkaline environment.

Life Is Good!

alive!

wild animals get horrible fungal diseases
[news.bbc.co.uk]
[www.jwildlifedis.org]

they get cancers, too, some of which are communicable,
[news.bbc.co.uk]

Genetics plays an important role in some cases, like the resistance that people with sickle cell anemia have for certain types of malaria. There is strength in diversity.

Diet isn't everything. It is a factor, not all factors.

Protein is a factor, not all factors, but it's probably wrong to say more than too little is uniformly bad.

In the Ross Bras rat cancer studies that examined protein intakes, there was am inverted U-shaped curve for protein intake: either too much or not enough slowed down the rate of cancers. Too little: the cancers didn't get enough protein. Too much: the cancers didn't get enough of everything else. Just right: the cancers grew most rapidly.

In AR Robinson's squamous cell carcinoma paper, even the raw vegan Wigmore diet rats got cancers.

Eating right provides powerful protection, but it isn't infallible. Our bodies are far too complicated for that, and they break down. The single biggest risk factor for cancer is old age.

Alive!

Alkaline is everything, but not tooooo alkaline. The blood Ph should ideally be a 7.365. Our urine Ph should ideally be 6.5 to 8.5 with the lower Ph usually being in the morning. During the night our body works to dump acids created by the metabolic process, a natural occurrance.

Dr. Robert Young says that pathogens cannot survive in properly ph balanced body fluids. He also believes in pleo-morphism (the idea that ANY cell in our body can move from normal, to harmful bacteria, viruses, fungus molds, and so on under the right circumstances). He is a bio-chemist who has dedicated his life to studying and promoting the fact (not theory) that one must alkalize or die!

The idea of pleomorphism is demonstrated in the process of death. When death occurs, the body rapidly becomes highly acidic (below 3.4 or 4 I think -need someone else to speak up about the facts). In that highly acid state ALL of the body's cells begin to morp into microganisms needed to decay the body. Fungus, mold, bacteria, and etc. are what is needed to break down the individual to "dust." They don't need to be "exposed" to a certain bacteria to have it proliferate. It just does! The body's cells naturally morph even when we are alive.

If one's body is in an acid state during life, there will be many occurrances of "dying while living." What I mean by this is that our bodies can start decomposing while we are living - under the right circumstances. Yucky thought! Acids actually do damage to our joints (arthritis), our heart (heart attacks), our brain (depression and other disorders), and so on. Dr. Young goes all the way to say that ALL disease is called by over-acidity of the body.

Proof of all of this is that in the US and other developed countries there are many more "modern" diseases than in underdeveloped countries. I am talking about diseases like cancer, heart disease, depression, and so on. Why? We have more acidic food, polution, and stressful lifestyles than "they"do.

Going back to nature is the obvious solution. It is so difficult to do that when all around us our culture caters to our "taste buds." We become addicted to tasty food!

I am anxious to hear others in this thread!

Arugula, I agree with you. There are definitely exceptions to the rule of diet . This is definitely true with inherited genetic mutations. How do genetic mutations occur? DNA can be damaged by too much acid over time.

Boy, do I sound like a broken record!!!!

However, I question the raw diet of the rats in the Wigmore study. Do you know if their PH was being monitored? A raw lifestyle does not automatically guarantee a healthful life as I am sure everyone here would agree. There are so many factors!


You mentioned that, "The single biggest risk factor for cancer is old age." Why do statistics indicate that to be so? Depending on lifestyle during younger years it is possible that all of the alkaline buffers such as calcium and magnesium have been used up so the body is in a chronic acid state. They would have been pulled out of the bones and teeth to keep the blood ph at an optimum level or death would occur. (Osteoporosis is currently a "disease" of older folks) When the buffers are all used up, guess what, death does occur. It may take a few years for the cancer to kill you, but death will occur. Yes, modern medicine may "cure" the cancer, but it will not reverse the acidity of the body. It only makes it worse. That is why so many cancer victims relapse within 5 years.

One doesn't have to be old to get cancer as we all know. Anyone who is overly acidic can get it. What disease one "gets" is probably determmined by their genetic code or weakness. For some it is breast cancer, and for others it may be lupus, artiritis, heart disease, etc.

mtnkathy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Proof of all of this is that in the US and other
> developed countries there are many more "modern"
> diseases than in underdeveloped countries. I am
> talking about diseases like cancer, heart disease,
> depression, and so on. Why? We have more acidic
> food, polution, and stressful lifestyles than
> "they"do.
>

No, this does not constitute proof of what you propose.
If anything, it provides evidence that what you state
is incorrect. Such people are more likely to die at
younger ages from communicable diseases and the
diseases of poverty: respiratory infections, HIV/AIDS,
diarrheal diseases, tuberculosis, malaria, etc. These
all have a definite microbial basis. (whereas only
certain types of cancers have a microbial basis). By
microbial, I mean at least one of these: prokaryotes,
eukaryotes, fungi, viruses, and helminths.

If they did not get wiped out from these things first,
they probably would die of cancers eventually. But if
their diets were good and unrefined, it *might* be later
rather than sooner.

arugula Wrote:

> >
>
> No, this does not constitute proof of what you
> propose.
> If anything, it provides evidence that what you
> state
> is incorrect. Such people are more likely to die
> at
> younger ages from communicable diseases and the
> diseases of poverty: respiratory infections,
> HIV/AIDS,
> diarrheal diseases, tuberculosis, malaria, etc.
> These
> all have a definite microbial basis. (whereas
> only
> certain types of cancers have a microbial basis).
> By
> microbial, I mean at least one of these:
> prokaryotes,
> eukaryotes, fungi, viruses, and helminths.
>
> If they did not get wiped out from these things
> first,
> they probably would die of cancers eventually. But
> if
> their diets were good and unrefined, it *might* be
> later
> rather than sooner.


It seems we do not see eye to eye on the "cause" of illness. You stated that
"respiratory infections,HIV/AIDS, diarrheal diseases, tuberculosis, malaria, etc. These all have a definite microbial basis." Yes, they do. The body has to have a receptive environment for such diseases to exist. These microrganisms CANNOT survive in a properly alkaline environment. If you believe they can, then our discussion will end here because that is what I base my beliefs on.

It does not matter where one lives; one can get sick anywhere. It doesn't matter where a sickly or deadly organism exists - it can only continue to survive and duplicate itself in an environment that will allow it to survive. Why do some people get the flu each year and others don't even when they have been directly exposed? The environment is either supportive or not to the organism.

I was responding to one of your statements, which is insupportable conjecture.

If you feel strongly that pH (of what, the blood, the bone marrow, the urine?) is an important risk factor for all disease, communicable or not, You will have to provide some proof. How about some papers with strong correlations rather than something you read in a lay book that sounded appealing to you?

Age itself is the biggest factor for most cancers.

breast cancer
"age is the biggest risk factor"
[www.halls.md]

prostate cancer
"the strongest risk factor is age"
[www.cancerscreening.nhs.uk]

cancer in general
"most cancers are more common in older people. In the United States, more than 60% of cancers occur in people older than 65; the risk of developing cancer doubles every 5 years after age 25. The increased cancer rate is probably due to a combination of increased and prolonged exposure to carcinogens and weakening of the body's immune system."
[www.merck.com]

colorectal cancer
"While younger adults can develop colorectal cancer, your chances of developing colorectal cancer increase markedly after age 50. More than 90% of people diagnosed with colorectal cancer are older than 50."
[www.cancer.org]

squamous cell carcinomas
see figs 3-5
risks skyrocket with age especially after age 70, even in Sweden where people are not highly exposed.
Time Trends and Familial Risks in Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Skin
Hemminki et al.
Arch Dermatol 2003:139:885-889
(free online with registration)

Regarding the AR Robinson study, the diet was:

apples, pears, carrots, tomatoes, bananas, sunflower seeds, wheatgrass. All foods had been grown without pesticides or herbicides.

Do you think that constitutes and acid diet? The mice still got cancers. And you and I may, too, if we don't die of something else first, even if our diets are absolutely perfect. We don't inherit perfect genes and we don't live in a perfect world. God made the helminths just as she made you and I, and they must eat to live, too.

Jose, adopting raw food diet has given me a far better understanding of health, and I am learning more as I go. But, I did not have a blind belief in modern medicine before raw. In fact, about 20 years ago I abandoned the belief in pills and other fractured methods of modern medicine. After studying the micronutrients, and taking some of them in a pill form, I finally came to a conclusion that the best way to get them was through diet. Once, about 20 years ago, a specialist (by name) informed me that if I did not go through a treatment, I may never be able to have children. The treatment involved a course of who-knows-how-damaging `hormones', which I flatly refused. No amount of him arguing "for the sake of my health" was going to convince me. Hey, I have two kids now, both conceived straight away, and I am extremely fertile. I combated my problems with insanely irregular cycles simply by changing my diet. As far as antibiotics, after having taken antibiotics on many occasions when I was sick, one day, about 20 years ago, after hating the way they made me feel, despite the warnings on the box, I decided to stop the treatment in the middle of it and threw the box away. Since then I would avoid antibiotics like a plague. For example, if I got a cold, I would fight it by staying in bed and sweat, and it always worked perfectly. Of course, since going raw, colds are the thing of the past. As far as vaccinations, lessons taken from my son's vaccinations (for example, him screaming uncontrollably for hours), about 15 years ago, resulted in me deciding not to vaccinate my daughter when she was born in 2000.

Going raw in 2003 has resulted in me discovering yet another sensitivity in me. The sensitivity to the signals of my body. Lessons about the raw foods has been a very helpful one indeed. But this is not all. Understanding that there are other factors that contribute to my well-being is important. Eating all-raw diet is only one part of it. High level of physical activity (my goal - going to work by bike, I only got back on my bike recently), emotional health, spiritual health (I hold meditation at our house on monthly basis), sunshine, being in touch with nature, growing my own food (we planted several fruit trees and fruit bushes around our house, plus we grow greens and other vegies). My understanding about the health is expanding, and I am very grateful for this.

My experience with raw food diet gave me first-hand evidence that it is the terrain that matters.

Gosia


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/09/2007 10:00PM by rawgosia.

Arugula, I will look and get back to you on the studies. I am not at a place I can even look right now.

As for the rat diet, I would only eat the wheatgrass, tomatoes and a few seeds. The other fruits are high sugar and produce some acid ash. There will be many who disagree with that statement. Let's just say that I cannot eat those fruits without getting too acidic and ultimately sick. However, I am not a scientist, but I have read widely and continue to do so in my trek to learn more about this subject.

Thanks for your input.

Eating vegetables, not fruit, helps slow down the rate of cognitive change in
older adults, according to a study published in the Oct. 24, 2006, issue of
Neurology, the scientific journal of the American Academy of Neurology.

In determining whether there was an association between vegetables, fruit and
cognitive decline, researchers from Rush University Medical Center studied 3,718
residents in Chicago, Illinois, who were age 65 and older. Participants
completed a food frequency questionnaire and received at least two cognitive
tests over a six-year period.

'Compared to people who consumed less than one serving of vegetables a day,
people who ate at least 2.8 servings of vegetables a day saw their rate of
cognitive change slow by roughly 40 percent, said study author Martha Clare
Morris, ScD, associate professor at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago,
Illinois. 'This decrease is equivalent to about 5 years of younger age.'

Of the different types of vegetables consumed by participants, green leafy
vegetables had the strongest association to slowing the rate of cognitive
decline.

The study also found the older the person, the greater the slowdown in the rate
of cognitive decline if that person consumed more than two servings of
vegetables a day. Surprisingly, the study found fruit consumption was not
associated with cognitive change. Why? Because the fruit sugars break down to
acetyl aldehyde and ethanol alcohol that ferment brain cells.

'This was unanticipated and raises several questions,' said Morris. 'It may be
due to vegetables containing high amounts of vitamin E, which helps lowers the
risk of cognitive decline. Vegetables, but not fruits, are also typically
consumed with added fats such as salad dressings, and fats increase the
absorption of vitamin E. Further study is required to understand why fruit is
not associated with cognitive change.'

Morris says the study's findings can be used to simplify public health messages
by saying people should eat more or less of foods in a specific food group, not
necessarily more or less of individual foods.

Good books:

1) Understanding Acid-Base , by Benjamin Abelow, M.D., lecturer in Medicine at Yale School of Medicine

2) Clinical Physiology of Acid-Base and..., by Burton David Rose, MD, Clinical Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, and Theodore W. Post, MD, Deputy editor, Nephrology.

Your discussions are so intelligent and educated that I try to keep up and I feel like if just a little bit absorbs into my wee brain I will be a better educated person. Thank you.

In the last 10 years our family has taken gradual steps toward healthier living. I have noticed our bodies ability to fight illness has increased with every change we have made. We used to be sick, like everyone else we know. Now the viruses that cause friends and family to be ill for days barely affects us. We will just get a touch of the symptoms and only for a short time. Raw has power boosted our immune systems way beyond any other change we have made so far. Whatever research discovers is interesting but the reality for us is what raw is doing for our health and it is keeping us as far from needing modern medicine as possible. An environment for a bad thing to thrive may be the same but different diets affect everyone differently. So the environment is manipulated with the diet but no two bodies react exactly the same to the same food. If you feed me and my husband and my children all the same food we don't do as well. If my husband eats mostly fruit and nuts and I eat mostly greens and fats and the kids eat mostly fruit we thrive. And I expect that to change as we change.

Poor lab rats !!

PH is important even in race horses. He is a study:

Study of 1,379 horses

Analysis of 1,379 racehorse bloods confirms need for an alkaline reserve replacer.A unique and exhaustive study on the precise effects of work and climate on the body chemistry of a racehorse in training was conducted by RANVET in 1986 at Sydney's Randwick Racecourse.

A total of 1,379 horses were involved in the study, one of the most comprehensive ever undertaken in Australia. A normal pH level was determined; the dramatic drop in base excess levels which were observed established the need for an alkaline reserve replacer, and recovery rates were monitored.

This study was undertaken by one of Australia's most eminent racehorse veterinarians who continued working on the project up until the beginning of 1992.

A summary of his findings is set out in the tables below.

Blood Gas Analyses of Horses in Training.

AVERAGES FOR PRE & POST WORK:
Summer and Winter

Table ONE: Fast Work - SUMMER

Time Blood
Samples Collected were for the following
1) pH
2) HCO3
3) Base Excess
4) H2 /HCO*3 Ratio

Saddled before work
7.406 pH
29.91 HCO3
6.09 Base Excess
1/18.81 H2/HCO3 Ratio

10 minutes after work
7.230 pH
14.23 HCO3-
10.75 Base Excess
1/12.71 H2/HCO3 Ratio

2 1/2 hours after work
7.395 pH
28.49 HCO3
4.06 Base Excess
1/16.96 H2/HCO3 Ratio

5 hours after work
7.395 pH
27.00 HCO3
4.45 Base Excess
1/17.25 H2/HCO3 Ratio

7 hours after work
7.350 pH
26.02 HCO3
3.58 Base Excess
1/15.16 H2/HCO3 Ratio

H2C03 = CARBONIC ACID HCO 3 = BICARBONATE
*The normal ratio = approximately 1/20

NB: Summer heat and humidity tends to reduce this ratio i.e. a tendency towards acidosis.

Table TWO: Fast Work - WINTER

Time Blood

Samples Collected
pH
HCO3
Base Excess
H2 /HCO*3 Ratio

Saddled before work

7.44 pH
32.55 HCO3
8.23 Base Excess
1/21.27 H2/HCO3 Ratio

10 minutes after work
7.237 pH
13.85 HCO3-
11.24 Base Excess
1/14.58 H2/HCO3 Ratio

2 hours after work
7.430 pH
29.93 HCO3
5.90 Base Excess
1/20.50 H2/HCO3 Ratio

3 1/2-4 hours after work
7.431 pH
29.24 HCO3
5.97 Base Excess
1/20.45 H2/HCO3

Ratio 5 hours after work
7.438 pH
29.57 HCO3
6.80 Base Excess
1/19.77 H2/HCO3 Ratio

6 hours after work
7.437 pH
30.48 HCO3
1/20.32 Base Excess

NB: Recovery times quicker in winter.

What is a normal pH for a Horse?

The normal pH of a horse's blood is between 7.42 and 7.45, so you can see just how narrow the range is... "point 03 " of a decimal point in fact! Any reading below 7.40 is an indication of "acidosis" (see Table ONE), while a reading of 7.20 would indicate severe "acidosis" (a severely depleted alkaline reserve).

More in the next box...

Regardless of whether it is summer or winter, the end result of (a) converting grain to energy and (b) hard work and stress, is an abnormally high production of BODY ACIDS in the horse's system.
Highly strung horses produce even greater amounts of body acids, as they expend more energy than the placid animal.

Lactic acid accumulates in the muscle when the supply of oxygen is insufficient for the oxidative processes and quickly diffuses out into the blood stream. In moderate exercise the rate of rise of lactic acid is greatest at the very start of exercise before the circulatory and respiratory systems have reached optimum output. This diminishes as a steady state develops.

The unfit horse and the horse coming into work fresh, or for the first time, produces greater quantities of lactic acid for a given workload. As the horse becomes fitter, his ability to buffer and cope with the acid produced improves quite considerably. Fillies also seem to be more prone to this condition than colts or geldings. The reasons for this are presumably hormonal, but as yet are not clearly understood.
In strenuous exercise, due to the relative deficiency of oxygen, the excessive accumulation of lactate ions represents a considerable acidosis with a marked lowering of bicarbonate concentration.

The body cannot stand acidosis for long and it has a very effective built-in system to counter it. Following exercise some lactic acid and acidic glucose builds up in the bloodstream creating even more acidity and the increased need for alkaline buffers.

The other compensating mechanisms are (1) increased respiration which lowers the carbon dioxide tension (pCO) and (2) increased excretion of hydrogen ions via the kidneys.

In exercise, a much greater quantity of lactic acid escapes in the urine. Such a process helps to minimize the production of acidosis, but it also represents a loss of base as well as energy producing substances.
Quite simply, buffers and buffer systems "mop up" the excess acid, neutralizing it, but this is done at a cost and particularly where very considerable amounts of lactic acid are produced, the buffer system can be overtaxed, i.e. the cost is too high. A major part of the buffer system is sodium bicarbonate, which combines with acid and carries it away. It can be seen that bicarbonate therefore is used up as that acid is neutralized and removed; that is the price, a loss of bicarbonate.

In summary:

The horses bicarbonate supply is used up and the body's natural buffer systems are stretched to their utmost in the racehorse in work. Acidosis may be more correctly called depleted base (alkaline) reserve. The bicarbonate and other buffer systems have a reduced ability to neutralize the acids - remember that bases (alkaline) are required to balance acids.

Remember that acidosis may not be the classical "tying-up" so familiar to most trainers; rather it may show up as a poor finish, the horse going sour, or the loss of the will to win is an indication of latent tissue acidosis.

Source: Frassetto L, Morris RC Jr, Sellmeyer DE, Todd K, Sebastian A. Diet, evolution and aging--the pathophysiologic effects of the post-agricultural inversion of the potassium-to-sodium and base-to-chloride ratios in the human diet.Eur J Nutr. 2001 Oct;40(5):200-13.

Acidosis is Unacceptable for Human Health

Theoretically, we humans should be better adapted physiologically to the diet our ancestors were exposed to during millions of years of hominid evolution than to the diet we have been eating since the agricultural revolution a mere 10,000 years ago, and since industrialization only 200 years ago.

Among the many health problems resulting from this mismatch between our genetically determined nutritional requirements and our current diet, some might be a consequence in part of the deficiency of potassium alkali salts (K-base), which are amply present in the plant foods that our ancestors ate in abundance, and the exchange of those salts for sodium chloride (NaCl), which has been incorporated copiously into the contemporary diet, which at the same time is meager in K-base-rich plant foods. Deficiency of K-base in the diet increases the net systemic acid load imposed by the diet.

We know that clinically-recognized chronic metabolic acidosis has deleterious effects on the body, including growth retardation in children, decreased muscle and bone mass in adults, and kidney stone formation, and that correction of acidosis can ameliorate those conditions. Is it possible that a lifetime of eating diets that deliver evolutionarily superphysiologic loads of acid to the body contribute to the decrease in bone and muscle mass, and growth hormone secretion, which occur normally with age? That is, are contemporary humans suffering from the consequences of chronic, diet-induced low-grade systemic metabolic acidosis?

Our group has shown that contemporary net acid-producing diets do indeed characteristically produce a low-grade systemic metabolic acidosis in otherwise healthy adult subjects, and that the degree of acidosis increases with age, in relation to the normally occurring age-related decline in renal functional capacity. We also found that neutralization of the diet net acid load with dietary supplements of potassium bicarbonate (KHCO3) improved calcium and phosphorus balances, reduced bone resorption rates, improved nitrogen balance, and mitigated the normally occurring age-related decline in growth hormone secretion--all without restricting dietary NaCl.

Moreover, we found that co-administration of an alkalinizing salt of potassium (potassium citrate) with NaCl prevented NaCl from increasing urinary calcium excretion and bone resorption, as occurred with NaCl administration alone.

Earlier studies estimated dietary acid load from the amount of animal protein in the diet, inasmuch as protein metabolism yields sulfuric acid as an end-product. In cross-cultural epidemiologic studies, Abelow found that hip fracture incidence in older women correlated with animal protein intake, and they suggested a causal relation to the acid load from protein. Those studies did not consider the effect of potential sources of base in the diet. We considered that estimating the net acid load of the diet (i. e., acid minus base) would require considering also the intake of plant foods, many of which are rich sources of K-base, or more precisely base precursors, substances like organic anions that the body metabolizes to bicarbonate. In following up the findings of Abelow et al., we found that plant food intake tended to be protective against hip fracture, and that hip fracture incidence among countries correlated inversely with the ratio of plant-to-animal food intake. These findings were confirmed in a more homogeneous population of white elderly women residents of the U.S.

These findings support affirmative answers to the questions we asked above. Can we provide dietary guidelines for controlling dietary net acid loads to minimize or eliminate diet-induced and age-amplified chronic low-grade metabolic acidosis and its pathophysiological sequelae. We discussed the use of algorithms to predict the diet net acid and provide nutritionists and clinicians with relatively simple and reliable methods for determining and controlling the net acid load of the diet. A more difficult question is what level of acidosis is acceptable. We argued that any level of acidosis may be unacceptable from an evolutionarily perspective, and indeed, that a low-grade metabolic alkalosis may be the optimal acid-base state for humans.

In 1889 Pasteur’s proteges, Emile Roux and Alexandre Yersin grew broth thick with diphtheria bacteria and used compressed air to force broth through a filter of unglazed porcelain. The filter was designed by Charles Chamber land, a physicist working with Pasteur; though only a tool, the filter itself would prove to be immensely important. NO bacteria or solids could pass through the porcelain. Only liquid could. They then sterilized this liquid. It still killed. That proved that bacteria, an insoluble could not kill, but a soluble, an acidic toxin did the KILLING.

Oops! I forgot to add this to the above box.

The cure from diphtheria was not in killing the bacteria but neutralizing the acids or excretions from the bacteria.

Claude Bernard (1813-1878) "The terrain is everything the germ is nothing." And upon the death bed of Louis Pasteur admitting to Claude Bernard that he was right in 1895.

I guess that is all for now. I could find more I'm sure if necessary.

Okay, I had to add just one more.

A recent seven-year study conducted at the University of California, San
Francisco, on 9,000 women showed that those who have chronic acidosis are at
greater risk for bone loss than those who have normal pH levels. The scientists
who carried out this experiment believe that many of the hip fractures prevalent
among middle-aged women are connected to high acidity caused by a diet rich in
animal foods and low in vegetables. This is because the body borrows calcium
from the bones in order to balance pH. -- American Journal of Clinical Nutrition

If your acid/alkalinity balance is so very important, then can anyone tell my why it is not automatically measured at any regular checkup at your doctor - sounds to me like this could go an awfully long way towards predicting potential health problems.

Actually, when I have my biological terrain assessment at my naturopath, he does measure my blood ph, urine ph and saliva ph. Then he provides me with a printout showing me exactly how my results compare to optimal results, and what, if anything needs to be done to improve it. Still, I am not sure my normal medical doctor would ever look at this or even consider it to be important.

Just to clarify, this is not a suggestion you are wrong - I know you are right, I am just curious whether doctors elsewhere do things any differently,

Sapphire

Sapphire, If I sold you a car that never broke down & would last forever, I wouldn't make any more money on you.

Mtnkathy,

EXCELLENTLY and BEAUTIFULLY stated!

And Jose, thank you so much for creating this thread. I love this topic and I couldn't agree more

It's so fascinating, isn't it? Gives me the goose bumps sometimes.

mtnkathy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Okay, I had to add just one more.
>
> A recent seven-year study conducted at the
> University of California, San
> Francisco, on 9,000 women showed that those who
> have chronic acidosis are at
> greater risk for bone loss than those who have
> normal pH levels.

This is the only one that's relevant to human health
(the other paleo author cite is just a commentary on
the same general idea), and I agree with it.

Keeping PRAL in check is important for bone health but it
isn't the only factor. There are many other factors.
You can have a perfect pH in your urine and if you don't
take in adequate amounts of minerals (as many RAW foodists
have contempt for RDAs and consistently fail to meet them)
and protein, etc. if you are too thin, if you don't exercise,
you could still get osteoporosis.

Also I hope to remind the readers:
there is no microbial basis for osteoporosis development.

None of the others support your conjecture. All they
have in common is that pH is measured somewhere in the
study. It seems to me that you just did a search for
studies that measured pH. But they do not even remotely
suggest that keeping pH (of what, you never specified)
elminiates all microbial pathenogenicity and disease.

You can kill bacteria with highly alkaline substances,
too. As well as with substances that have neutral pH.
All you have to do is interfere with their cell wall
and/or cell membrane synthesis somehow. You can do this
with strong detergents that have neutral pH. Etc.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/10/2007 03:09AM by arugula.

arugula Wrote:

> many RAW
> foodists have contempt for RDAs and consistently fail to
> meet them

I doubt it. Show me the published paper that supports your conjecture - that raw foodists are consistently nutrient deficient.


>if you are too thin, if you
> don't exercise,
> you could still get osteoporosis.
>

Actually, you're wrong. A recent scientific study found just the opposite to be true: that raw foodists have surprisingly above-average bone health, this despite their thinness and lack of intake of foods traditionally considered good calcium sources. And I can't do windows on my phone internet so can't go find the study to post it.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/10/2007 04:38AM by sunshine79.

Jose,
I would like to add to your topic that Dr. Bechamp so certainly knew his pleomorphic theory of medicine to be correct, and Pasteur's to be incorrect, that in order to prove it to everyone watching, he drank a cup of cholera. Naturally, he didn't get sick.

arugula Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> mtnkathy Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > Proof of all of this is that in the US and
> other
> > developed countries there are many more
> "modern"
> > diseases than in underdeveloped countries. I am
> > talking about diseases like cancer, heart
> disease,
> > depression, and so on. Why? We have more
> acidic
> > food, polution, and stressful lifestyles than
> > "they"do.
> >
>
> No, this does not constitute proof of what you
> propose.
> If anything, it provides evidence that what you
> state
> is incorrect. Such people are more likely to die
> at
> younger ages from communicable diseases and the
> diseases of poverty: respiratory infections,
> HIV/AIDS,
> diarrheal diseases, tuberculosis, malaria, etc.
> These
> all have a definite microbial basis. (whereas
> only
> certain types of cancers have a microbial basis).
> By
> microbial, I mean at least one of these:
> prokaryotes,
> eukaryotes, fungi, viruses, and helminths.
>
> If they did not get wiped out from these things
> first,
> they probably would die of cancers eventually. But
> if
> their diets were good and unrefined, it *might* be
> later
> rather than sooner.


No, you're wrong, and mtnkathy had it right. A couple of Harvard researchers proved in "The Okinawa Program" that western lifestyles DO promote cancer, diabetes, heart disease etc. They proved that the people of Okinawa are the healthiest and longest-lived people on earth, yet when they move to a western society and adopt a western lifestyle, their health quickly plummets to western standards.

"Dr. Robert Young says that pathogens cannot survive in properly ph balanced body fluids. He also believes in pleo-morphism (the idea that ANY cell in our body can move from normal, to harmful bacteria, viruses, fungus molds, and so on under the right circumstances). He is a bio-chemist who has dedicated his life to studying and promoting the fact (not theory) that one must alkalize or die!"

Mtnkathy, what you say makes sense. I would be interested in studies performed on long-term raw foodists, but waiting for this may take a while he he. In the meantime, is visiting the chemist and getting some ph test going to be an experiment of any value at all? Perhaps one day curiosity will take over me and I will do it, urine only though. I would not dare though cause myself bleed in order to test my blood ph.

"Alkaline is everything, but not tooooo alkaline. The blood Ph should ideally be a 7.365. Our urine Ph should ideally be 6.5 to 8.5 with the lower Ph usually being in the morning. During the night our body works to dump acids created by the metabolic process, a natural occurrance."

Thanks for sharing, Mtnkathy. Would it be too much to ask you to share a little bit about yourself (the usuals - time raw etc, and unusuals - your academic background)?


Gosia


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams