On Thu, 17 Sep 1998, Amadeus Schmidt wrote:

> I have mentioned in many books on nutrition that
> high protein food items cause an acidification in the body.
> This may contribute to osteoporosis more or less
> (Lorens Artice in fact gives reasons when and why it
> did not create osteoporosis in paleolithic times).

While the acidification-osteoporosis theory sounds plausible in
principle, I don't think there is evidence that it is a problem
in the context of paleodiet.  There has been much discussion on
the Paleodiet list of this "paradox."  There is good reason to
believe that paleolithic protein intake was *higher* than typical
contemporary protein intake, which tends to fall between 11% and
15% of calories.  There is also good reason to believe that
paleolithic people had excellent bone density.  This suggests
that the expected bone loss is prevented by other factors.  It is
also Cordain who adduces the evidence that higher protein intake
produces improved blood lipids.

In short, while high protein intake *may* be problematic in the
context of a diet that also abounds in sodium and the refined
carbs that cause it to be retained, or the phytates that inhibit
calcium uptake, it has not been shown to be a probem in diets
that lack these complicating factors.

I conclude that there is good reason to believe that a higher
protein diet (20-30% of calories) is beneficial in the context of
other paleodiet factors, and no reason to think it dangerous.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]