On Wed, 16 Sep 1998 19:27:44 -0400, Ilya <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Amadeus Schmidt wrote:
>> "... Meat and fish have a
>> high potential renal acid load (PRAL) whereas fruits and vegetables have
>> a negative PRAL, meaning they reduce acid excretion.   The human kidney
>> cannot excrete urine with a pH lower than 5; consequently  the acids
>> (mainly phosphate and sulfate) of acid producing foods such as meats,
>> fish and some cereals must be buffered partially by calcium  which is
>> ultimately derived from the skeleton ..."

>I've seen this before and it is something that appears to make sense
>theoretically, just does not work like that in real humans
.
What do you think this statement refers to, if not real
humans? Irreal humans?
High protein diets *do* cause an acidification of the body,
wich has to cope with it in some way.
The bone loss also is only one possible disadvantage
of body acidification. More negative strains on the
metabolism are presumed in literature.

Anyway this *is* a disadvantage of over protein
consumption. If you eat over protein for the mere
purpose of caloric supply - as you tell us to do-
then you have this disadvantage without any advantage.
Therefore it would be better to get *at least* caloric
supply from fats or carbs.
*That* was my point.

>Those
>consuming above average protein tend to have higher bone density
>than those consuming less.
How can you verify this statement? Any references?
It would be neccessary to see if "those" mentioned were
of a special group, maybe body builders who may
take
supplements and have additional exercise to prevent bone loss
(both not paleo in neanderthin's terms as i read it).
Also "those" may have a heavy dairy consumation.
Dairy has (due to the high protein content for the
quick growing calves) a very high calcium content.

I'd like to add here that I'd consider todays *average*
protein consumption in western countries as way too much.
Osteoporosis is a widespread desease now here,
as opposed to agrarian times about 200 years ago
where nutrition was grain and vegetable based
- with a lower protein part -
and osteoporosis was almost unknown.

>This came up a few times on one of the
>lists I am on (I think the lowcarb-l). There was an explanation of
>how the body handles the acid and it wasn't by leaching calcium out
>of the bones. As usual, I don't remember what it was - saw it, groked it,
>and forgot it as no longer needed
.
The reference of Loren Cordaine
who I think is considered a paleo-authority on this
list, is only one of many.
If you argue against it, then I'd really prefer to
see the arguments.

changing the thread now because I can't see a vitamin-C
connection anymore.
regards

Amadeus