Sorry to have to post this way, but could you please delete me from this list. I can't seem to find any other way to get this accomplished. 
Thank You.



-----Original Message-----
From: steve <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Thu, Dec 17, 2009 4:44 pm
Subject: Re: Latest On Dietary Acid/Base Balance Being Crucial


I read Robert's post as basically saying: IF someone is eating an acidic diet AND said diet results in calcium and other minerals being leached from the bones to maintain blood/body ph within a narrow range, THEN that bone leaching of minerals would be occurring almost from day one since one doesn't typically change their diet midlife from alkaline (allegedly bone promoting) to acidic (allegedly bone destroying). Yet, children on said acidic diet still grow to adulthood with strong bones and to add more fuel to the issue, people who do weight training of any kind without changing their diet increase their bone densities which seems to indicate that this alleged PH balancing routine is getting it's minerals from some mystery source OR the acidic diet theory is in part or in full BS. 
 
I have a theory that low vitamin D3 and low K is a significant factor in normal bone turnover where more bone is destroyed than reformed resulting in TOO much calcium going into places like the arteries, kidneys, brain sand, prostate stones, etc (also, western calcium intake is too high). IF an acidic diet is a part of the problem of bone loss, it is a very very small part. 
 
On a related issue, the following quite discusses calcium intake and while they are working with a 65% carb diet, the estimate earlier in the paper was that the paleo aboriginal diet was 20-40% carbs: 
 
Australian Aboriginal plant foods: a consideration of 
their nutritional composition and health implications 
http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FNRR%2FNRR11_01%2FS0954422498000043a.pdf&code=a6ad097ac43451d979829c68c457666d 
 
"Palaeolithic nutrition 
 
In the classic paper on palaeolithic nutrition by Eaton & Konner (1985), the nutritional content 
of 44 vegetable foods most commonly eaten by six modem stone-age peoples (!Kung, -Kade, 
San and Hadza in Africa, Aborigines in Australia and Tasaday in the Philippines) was used as 
the basis of the average nutrient intake from plant foods of palaeolithic human beings. Eaton & 
Konner reasoned that the nutrients may have varied between particular foods and varied with 
ambient conditions, but that the average nutrient values should reflect “central tendencies 
transcending these effects”. 
 
On the basis of the nutrient composition of those 44 vegetable foods and the assumption 
that 65 % of energy was derived from plants (the mean value for 58 primitive societies), they 
estimated that plant foods would yield 60 g protein, 42 g fat (16 g polyunsaturated), 334 g 
carbohydrate, and 46 g fibre, 150 mg sodium, 1500 mg calcium. Average vitamin C intake was 
calculated to have been 393 mg/d and average fibre intake would be 46 gld. Virtually all of the 
carbohydrate, vitamin C and all of the fibre eaten would have come from plants. 
 
At least as far as AA(Australia Aborigines) are concerned, we now have a much wider range of nutrient data on 
which to base estimates of what might have been the contribution of plant foods to nutrient 
intake in Paleolithic times. If we compare our figures with those of Eaton & Konner (1985) for 
diets providing 65 % energy as plant, we get a fairly similar picture. AA would have eaten 
about 1.2kg plant food/d (rather than 1.5 kg), more vegetable protein (72 v. 60g), more 
vegetable fat (59 v. 42 g), about the same amount of carbohydrate (334 v. 328 g), much more 
fibre (130 v. 46g) and less vitamin C (293 v. 393mg). They would have eaten more sodium 
(about 560 v. 148mg) and less calcium (1200 v. 1500mg) than Eaton & Konner predicted. 
Only the 130 g fibre/d seems exceptional by today’s standards, although the archaeological 
evidence based on coprolite analysis suggests that such large amounts of fibre were typical in 
other parts of the world (Kliks, 1978). 
Writers often comment on the wide range" 
 
Steve 
 
Ron Hoggan wrote: 
> Hi Robert, 
> The theory is that the more acidic the diet, the more calcium is leached > from the bones to buffer that acid and hence, maintain healthy ph in the > blood. 
> Best Wishes, 
> Ron 
> > Robert Kesterson wrote: 
>> I think I must be missing something. If I understand correctly, the >> idea is that because of the diet, the body has to steal minerals from >> the bones to deal with the acidity. Presumably it must do so because >> the diet isn't supplying those minerals in sufficient quantity >> (otherwise it would not be necessary to take them from the bones). >> But what puzzles me is, if that is the case, how do the minerals get >> into the bones in the first place? If a person's diet is such that >> additional minerals must be taken from the bones, and this is the same >> diet they've always eaten, how was the diet ever sufficient to allow >> bone growth? 
>> 
>> -- >> Robert Kesterson 
>> [log in to unmask] 
 
--  
Steve - [log in to unmask] 
 
"The Problem with Socialism is that eventually you 
run out of Other People's Money." --Margaret Thatcher 
 
"Mistrust of Government is the Bedrock of American Patriotism" 
 
Take World's Smallest Political Quiz at 
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html