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