Sciencemadness Discussion Board - Chemical Evidence for an Alkaline Diet and Meditation?

Chemical Evidence for an Alkaline Diet and Meditation?

AJKOER - 29-9-2018 at 04:58

Per this my recent thread:

If a problem relates to any of the products: •Br, •Br + Br- = •Br2- (from photoactive Br2, see https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/200... ), or HOBr,..., I would try adding alkaline H2O2, which creates the radicals •HO2 and •OH, thereby effectively removing radical species:

•Br2- + H2O2 -> 2Br-+ •HO2 + H+ k=1.0E+05 (Equation reference, see http://binarystore.wiley.com/store/10.1029/2006JD008227/asse... )

•Br2- + OH- -> 2Br- + •OH k=1.1E+10

•Br + OH- -> Br- + •OH

H2O2 + •OH -> H2O + •HO2

Note, H+ + •O2- = •HO2 (pKa = 4.88)

Other reactions employing the above radicals to remove problem •Br, •Br2- radicals:

•Br + •HO2 -> Br- + H+ + O2

•Br + •O2- -> Br- + O2

•Br2- + •HO2 -> 2Br- + H+ + O2 k=4.4E+09

•Br2- + •O2- -> 2Br- + O2 k=1.7E+08
......................
[Edited on 29-9-2018 by AJKOER]

A re-examination of my comments above possibly suggests first that an alkaline diet could introduce harmful •OH radicals, which could contribute to cell damage, aging and disease (cancers,.., see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3249911/ )! But, in the presence of higher metabolically generated H2O2, beneficial, in the proper level, •O2- could be formed. Per a source (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5618079/ ), to quote:

"Superoxide dismutases are also antioxidant enzymes that work with copper/zinc in the cytosol and manganese in mitochondria catalyzing the breakdown of superoxide anions into oxygen and H2O2 [77,78]."

More superoxide (•O2-) could also be formed via an iron rich blood (from foods like spinach,.. ) per a metal auto-oxidation reaction:

O2 + Fe(ll)L = •O2- + Fe(lll)L

where well oxygenated blood could arise from activities like meditation or exercise. Ligand complex here includes ascorbate from Vitamin C. To quote a reference above (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3249911/):

"Although there are several enzymes system within the body that scavenge free radicals, the principle micronutrient (vitamins) antioxidants are vitamin E (α-tocopherol), vitamin C (ascorbic acid), and B-carotene.[32] "

Also:

"Antioxidants act as radical scavenger, hydrogen donor, electron donor, peroxide decomposer, singlet oxygen quencher, enzyme inhibitor, synergist, and metal-chelating agents. "

Per another source (see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5618079/ ), CONCENTRATION levels are important, to quote:

"Additionally, the ability of redox-active metals such as iron (Fe), copper (Cu), chromium (Cr), and cobalt (Co)) in generation of superoxide anion radical and nitric oxide radicals have been widely studies. For example, it is known that excessive amounts of Iron and copper can be toxic for cells as they affect the redox state of the cell [49]."

"Indeed, metabolic processes may produce different types of ROS, including superoxide (O2•−), hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), hydroxyl radicals (OH•) and singlet oxygen (O2), which can, if present at an inappropriate level, oxidize DNA and induce various types of damages such as double-stranded DNA breaks and impairments which are frequently found in human tumors [50]. "

"Reactive nitrogen species (RNS) act with reactive oxygen species (ROS) to induce nitrosative stress condition. In animal cells, RNS production starts with the reaction of superoxide (O2•−) with nitric oxide (NO•) to form peroxynitrite (ONOO−), which is a highly reactive species with the ability to damage lipids, DNA bases, proteins, thiols, etc. Since generation of RNS is linked to ROS, it is not surprising that scavengers and antioxidants could reduce the formation and activity of RNS and thus nitrosative stress condition."

I believe red meats may contribute to reactive nitrogen species, which are apparently problematic. Final quote:

"Combined, it is clear that ROS biology is complex where cells have evolved intricate mechanisms to modulate ROS levels, ensuring redox homeostasis, depending on cell state and fate."

So it may be hard to assess, but I suspect things like an alkaline, vegetable rich diet, exercise, Vitamins C, E, Beta carotene,.. , less red meat and meditation, all from a biochemical perspective, are likely good for the body, which is basically all stuff we have been told, but usually don't take seriously.

[Edited on 29-9-2018 by AJKOER]

unionised - 29-9-2018 at 05:19

In the real world, any excess alkali in the diet will be excreted in the urine. The body has several robust systems in place to maintain pH.
So an "alkaline diet" is meaningless. It's the sort of nonsense that people use when they want to sell you "healing crystals"

Iron in the blood is strongly bound to proteins specially evolved for the purpose. The concentration of free Fe++ or Fe+++ ions is practically nil.

AJKOER - 29-9-2018 at 05:50

Thanks Unionised for the comment.

I may take issue with the nil concentration comment, as does not a radical attack of DNA start with a single molecule, perhaps resulting in a single cancerous cell, that with time, may proliferate into a sizable tumor?

Also, while I agree that the body has early in life 'several robust systems' to address pH and also to administer the removal of cancer cells and the like, does not the immune system weaken with age?

I also believe there are enough studies of the "principle micronutrient (vitamins) antioxidants are vitamin E (α-tocopherol), vitamin C (ascorbic acid), and B-carotene.[32] ", to not put them in the same class of "healing crystals" which you appear to believe is the case for reducing ones acidity.

For disclosure, I did not make or sell or exactly known what on earth (or any other planet, galaxy, or dimension) are "healing crystals", but, do unfortunately, know people who would probably buy them (and further suspect that they might not be of this planet, galaxy, or dimension).

[Edited on 29-9-2018 by AJKOER]

Tsjerk - 29-9-2018 at 08:17

You can not influence acidity of the body with diet. First everything is made highly acidic on the stomach. Next the blood is highly buffered. Anything alkaline you eat is just compensated by your stomach producing more acid.

Changing the pH of your blood gives far more direct effects on once health (read; acute acidosis). Besides that it is not the immune system that makes sure pH is regulated, it is pure chemistry and doesn't deteriorate with age.

You are mixing up chemistry and biology big-time. You are making up problems that don't exist and back them up with assumptions that don't work like you assume.

unionised - 29-9-2018 at 08:19

Quote: Originally posted by AJKOER

Thanks Unionised for the comment.

I may take issue with the nil concentration comment, as does not a radical attack of DNA start with a single molecule, perhaps resulting in a single cancerous cell, that with time, may proliferate into a sizable tumor?

Also, while I agree that the body has early in life 'several robust systems' to address pH and also to administer the removal of cancer cells and the like, does not the immune system weaken with age?

I also believe there are enough studies of the "principle micronutrient (vitamins) antioxidants are vitamin E (α-tocopherol), vitamin C (ascorbic acid), and B-carotene.[32] ", to not put them in the same class of "healing crystals" which you appear to believe is the case for reducing ones acidity.

For disclosure, I did not make or sell or exactly known what on earth (or any other planet, galaxy, or dimension) are "healing crystals", but, do unfortunately, know people who would probably buy them (and further suspect that they might not be of this planet, galaxy, or dimension).

[Edited on 29-9-2018 by AJKOER]

" does not a radical attack of DNA start with a single molecule,"
Yes, it does.
But that has nothing to do with the fact that the concentration of free iron ions in blood is practically nil. If they are not there, they don't cause cancer.
So, your point is true, but irrelevant

"does not the immune system weaken with age?"
Yes, it does.
And so do the liver and kidneys, but the pH of the blood is still maintained within very tight limits.
So, your point is true, but irrelevant.

"I also believe there are enough studies of the "principle micronutrient (vitamins) antioxidants are vitamin E (α-tocopherol), vitamin C (ascorbic acid), and B-carotene.[32] ""
Yes, there are.
But those don't say anything about an "alkaline diet", do they- they can't because such a diet has little effect- the excess alkali gets pissed out.
So, your point is true, but irrelevant.

" I did not make or sell or exactly known what on earth (or any other planet, galaxy, or dimension) are "healing crystals", but, do unfortunately, know people who would probably buy them"
Those people are the ones who buy into "alkaline diets".

[Edited on 29-9-18 by unionised]

Melgar - 29-9-2018 at 13:27

To add to this, the way your body controls your blood pH is by breathing. CO2 lowers your blood pH, after all, and you need to breathe to eliminate CO2. If your blood pH starts to get below 7.4, you'll start breathing more heavily. If your blood pH goes above 7.4, you'll breathe less. If you want to raise your blood pH, you can do it right now! Just start hyperventilating! Then you'll give yourself respiratory alkalosis:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respiratory_alkalosis

Sounds fun, right?

As for things like aging, it's mostly caused by the fact that your cells can only divide something like 50 times before they'll start undergoing apoptosis. Parts of you like your skin and your hair and your stomach lining are constantly dividing and shedding themselves. Since you're a warm-blooded life form, you can't do much to change the rate that this happens. So you're pretty much consigned to live until either you get some terminal illness, or your body stops being able to repair itself and one of your critical systems stops working.

Cancer is part random, part genetics, and part environmental. You probably have cancer cells in your body right now, but your immune system usually takes care of them for you. Cancer starts with cells mutating though. Some species are really good at fixing cell mutations. Like sharks. Shark cells can fix mutations so quickly that they almost never get cancer. Some people even take shark cartilage capsules because they think it will help their bodies fend off cancer. But there's a downside to this resistance to cellular mutation. That being, mutation is a necessary condition for evolution. And while shark cells are great at fixing mutations, it's meant that sharks have barely evolved in like 100 million years.

Presumably, we'll be able to control our own evolution via genetic engineering in the future, and won't need to rely on random mutation. When that day comes, we'll probably also be able to engineer our cells to be as resistant to mutation as shark cells are. But in the meantime, we'll have to just accept the fact that cancer is something bad that can happen to us, and is sort of an evolutionary side-effect of our dominance in the race towards planetary domination.

Mr. Rogers - 29-9-2018 at 13:32

From a health perspective, the best diet is probably a Mediterranean diet (which involves eating some fish) followed by a vegan diet.

Probably like most ppl. here, I have five grocery stores within walking distance of my house. These stores have isles of food stocked with choices that don't involve dead animals. People are accustomed to eating animals out of habit, taste, or convenience. These are not good arguments when you have alternative choices in the isles of the grocery store available to you.

This is certainly a position of privilege and if I lived in the interior of Alaska there is no grocery store and I would have to hunt for my food. But if you're an urban/suburbanite there's no reason you should be eating meat as you have *many* ethical choices available to you.

I certainly don't think a chemist (or a scientist) should be eating meat unless there is no other choice.

[Edited on 29-9-2018 by Mr. Rogers]

streety - 29-9-2018 at 14:14

Nutrition science really has problems. Beyond disease causing deficiencies we know so little and it is so difficult to get conclusive evidence on the more subtle effects.

Ideally we would have an optimal diet that works for everyone. Unfortunately, such a thing does not exist. The optimal diet is going to be influenced by a persons genetics, environment, immunological status, microbiome, health goals, activity level, ethics, and probably other factors not even occurring to me.

So until we are able to fully address all the nuances of human health we are left with an ever proliferating list of diet options. Some are truly dangerous with no positive aspects but most, like any good lie, have just enough truth to deceive.

With the example of the Alkaline diet, although it is based on a flawed theory, many of the recommendations (more fruit and veg, less processed food, etc.) would be an improvement on the diet of many people.

Quote: Originally posted by unionised

Quote: Originally posted by AJKOER

I also believe there are enough studies of the "principle micronutrient (vitamins) antioxidants are vitamin E (α-tocopherol), vitamin C (ascorbic acid), and B-carotene.[32] ",

"I also believe there are enough studies of the "principle micronutrient (vitamins) antioxidants are vitamin E (α-tocopherol), vitamin C (ascorbic acid), and B-carotene.[32] ""
Yes, there are.
But those don't say anything about an "alkaline diet", do they- they can't because such a diet has little effect- the excess alkali gets pissed out.
So, your point is true, but irrelevant.

That quote seems to be from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3249911/

Reference 32 is https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10217058/

Unfortunately it's behind a paywall but reading it only vitamin C is discussed. Even for vitamin C it is unclear whether the reference supports the claim.

I interpreted the claim as indicating the main dietary sources of antioxidant capacity were vitamin C, E, and beta-carotene. It's a simple claim and certainly seems plausible. There should be easy to find studies but searching around I'm struggling to find any evidence to support it.

Nutrition science really has problems.

Melgar - 29-9-2018 at 14:45

Quote: Originally posted by Mr. Rogers

From a health perspective, the best diet is probably a Mediterranean diet (which involves eating some fish) followed by a vegan diet.

Probably like most ppl. here, I have five grocery stores within walking distance of my house. These stores have isles of food stocked with choices that don't involve dead animals. People are accustomed to eating animals out of habit, taste, or convenience. These are not good arguments when you have alternative choices in the isles of the grocery store available to you.

This is certainly a position of privilege and if I lived in the interior of Alaska there is no grocery store and I would have to hunt for my food. But if you're an urban/suburbanite there's no reason you should be eating meat as you have *many* ethical choices available to you.

I certainly don't think a chemist (or a scientist) should be eating meat unless there is no other choice.

[Edited on 29-9-2018 by Mr. Rogers]

See, I can understand a vegetarian diet, but a vegan diet? That's based way more on an environmentalism perspective than a health perspective. While there is overlap, they aren't the same thing. Just because eating too much fatty meat is bad for you, doesn't mean there are necessarily going to be negative health effects from eating any meat at all. That's like saying that because refined sugar and vegetable oil both come from plants and aren't very healthy, people shouldn't eat plants.

I don't even buy the environmentalism perspective, at least when it comes to dairy farming. In Switzerland, for example, the entire country was only able to exist because of dairy farming. Farmers would graze their cattle in the mountains during the summer, then bring them down into the valleys and feed them hay during the winter. The land and climate only really work for livestock farming. The same is true in places like Wisconsin and Vermont. And for anyone that thinks dairy farming is cruel, it's a well-established fact that stressed cows produce less milk. One farm near me had a new barn being built on their land, and noticed that milk production went up over the weekend. Apparently, all the noises from construction bothered the cows, and they gave less milk during the week. So "cow comfort" is at the top of the list for farmers that want to increase their milk production.

[Edited on 9/29/18 by Melgar]

macckone - 29-9-2018 at 20:51

Having a lot of very personal experience with body chemistry being out of whack and cancer, I can make a few comments.

If you have chronic acidosis, they give you medicine to treat the cause and/or symptoms.
In my case I have taken allopurinol and sodium citrate.
The allopurinol effects how uric acid is generated from protein break down.
sodium citrate is an alkalizer as well as helping keep calcium oxalate in solution.

As for cancer, yes free radicals can damage DNA. So can our shared hobby if you don't take proper precautions.
No there is not significant 'free radicals' in any one cell or anywhere in particular.
Oxygen will cause damage to cells over time. So if you are seriously concerned, you should stop breathing it.
It is 100% fatal in the long term. But then not breathing is 100% fatal in the short term.

If you have a genetic predisposition for cancer you should get checked regularly and yes a vegan diet can help but nothing in life is 100% except death. That is coming for all of us. But I personally am not giving up meat.

unionised - 30-9-2018 at 00:53

Quote: Originally posted by Mr. Rogers

People are accustomed to eating animals out of habit, taste, or convenience. These are not good arguments when you have alternative choices in the isles of the grocery store available to you.

[Edited on 29-9-2018 by Mr. Rogers]

I disagree with your odd suggestion taste is not a good argument for choosing what to eat.

From a strict dietary health perspective, I shouldn't drink alcohol either- but it's not going to stop me.

unionised - 30-9-2018 at 00:58

Quote: Originally posted by macckone

...
The allopurinol effects how uric acid is generated from protein break down.
sodium citrate is an alkalizer as well as helping keep calcium oxalate in solution.
...

Uric acid is produced from DNA, and RNA, rather than from proteins, but the problem there isn't the acidity of uric acid, but the insolubility.

Sodium citrate alters the pH of the urine helping with the excretion of uric acid (among other things) but it doesn't meaningfully affect the pH of the blood etc.

Quote: Originally posted by Melgar

See, I can understand a vegetarian diet, but a vegan diet? That's based way more on an environmentalism perspective than a health perspective.
[Edited on 9/29/18 by Melgar]

I think it's usually based on a moral decision; "eating sentient things is wrong".

[Edited on 30-9-18 by unionised]

SWIM - 30-9-2018 at 12:53

Each juicy morsel of meat is alive, and swarming with the same filth as found in the carcass of a dead rat.

Meat eaters, Sir, are drowning in a tide of gore.

What is a sausage? A sausage is an indigestible balloon of decayed meat, riddled with tuberculosis.
Eat and die!

For I have seen many a repentant meat-glutton, his body full of uric acid and remorse, his soul adrift on a raft on an ocean of poisonous slime.

Also, certain other things have to be avoided:
Like Feather Beds, Romantic Novels, and the touching of one's organs.

Remember, every erection is a flagpole on your grave...

-John Harvey Kellogg, vegetarian and yogurt enema enthusiast

unionised - 30-9-2018 at 13:01

That's interesting.
It suggest he didn't realise that people usually cook meat.

macckone - 30-9-2018 at 22:43

He lost me at touching your organ is to be avoided.

Mr. Rogers - 1-10-2018 at 20:34

Quote:

I think it's usually based on a moral decision; "eating sentient things is wrong".

I don't think it's wrong. It's necessary in many cases. I do however think it's not always an ethical choice when there are alternatives - and that's not the same as a moral choice. Morality involves dogma where ethics doesn't.

[Edited on 2-10-2018 by Mr. Rogers]

Tsjerk - 1-10-2018 at 22:46

In the case of health benefits from an alkaline diet I guess ethical dilemma's concerning eating meat are irrelevant.

Mr. Rogers - 1-10-2018 at 23:00

An "alkaline diet" is a pseudo scientific diet and is as meaningless as a blood type diet or South Beach diet or any other type of fad diet. You can achieve proper heath and nutrition from most diets if you consume all foods in moderation. This goes for diets heavy or devoid of animal proteins.

Understand also I'm not using the term "diet" as synonymous with "activity to loose weight", but rather a style of consuming food - ie. I can believe you'll loose weight by eliminating any single macro nutrient from your diet if all other parameters are kept equal - ie. eliminating meat or starch or fat or whatever else. That's just a calorie reduction, and that's why fad diets seem to work.

Most humans should be eating a 1500-2000 kcal/day diet, heavily biased on plant matter, and if your circumstances warrant, maybe adding oily fish such as sardines to your diet. That calorie count is based on average human basal metabolic rate for sedentary people in a post-modern society. If you're like most people that post on internet forums that go to the gym three times a day and run marathons, than you should adjust your calorie count accordingly.

[Edited on 2-10-2018 by Mr. Rogers]

Mr. Rogers - 1-10-2018 at 23:33

Quote: Originally posted by Melgar

Quote: Originally posted by Mr. Rogers

The environmental impact of raising ruminants, poultry or pork for food is a negative gain. This can be explained by the laws of thermodynamics. We simply put more energy into raising these organism for food than we gain as energy in the form of calories in the human diet. This is simply not the case with responsibly grown plant matter which humans are capable of existing on, as we're omnivores.

Melgar - 2-10-2018 at 00:26

Quote: Originally posted by Mr. Rogers

Not entirely true, at least in the case of cattle farming, which is the only type of livestock farming that I have personal experience with. Cattle convert grass, which humans cannot eat, into milk and beef, which many humans are quite fond of. Land that's being used to raise cattle would probably have been left fallow otherwise. You know how the Great Plains in the US used to have all those vast herds of bison? Well, that land is still being grazed, just by cattle now. And cattle and bison are related closely enough that they can interbreed, so the main thing that changed is that now all those calories are being consumed by people.

Also, it's arbitrary to compare the energy we put into producing our food to the energy we consume. After all, energy that people consume as calories is dwarfed by the energy used by industry and commerce and transportation. Humans have proven exceptionally adept at harnessing the various energies that exist in nature, and I don't think it should be counted against us when we use those energies.

Quote:

This is simply not the case with responsibly grown plant matter

How is that not true of "responsibly grown" meat as well? Traditionally, pigs have been fed garbage, chickens picked around all day at whatever they could find on the ground, and cattle, sheep, and goats ate plant matter that people could not. You can't compare ideal "responsibly grown" conditions for plants, to actual practices of modern livestock farming. Because produce farming, as it's actually practiced, is incredibly wasteful, uses tons of energy for refrigeration and transportation, and typically produces food that is low in calories anyway. The only crops we approach the break-even point on are things like corn, soybeans, rice, and sugarcane. But I think we can both agree that a diet too heavy in those crops isn't very healthy at all.

Clarify a simple question for me

Sulaiman - 2-10-2018 at 01:50

Is it true that humans can live a full length, healthy, active life,
eating only vegetable matter ?

_____________________________________________________
I have no moral or ethical objections to flesh eating
I eat flesh daily because I like it, and my mind and body can handle it,
but I can see a need to reduce flesh consumption as arable land area and marine stock decrease, while population increases.

I am much more concerned with :
. how we treat each other,
. how we treat animals,
. and the unethical practices of many of our corporate food producers.
(both vegetable and animal food producers)
_________________________________________________________
Regarding the original question posed by AJKOER,
I have no information, just conjecture;
To a large degree I consider my body to be able to 'normalise' internal conditions
as external conditions such as diet, climate, pathogen exposure etc. are varied,
with the speed and degree of 'normalisation' depending upon
my inherited DNA, proteins, bacteria etc.
the history of my body
the type and speed of changes to external conditions.

I think that that efficacy of each component of the 'normalising' systems
can over time grow stronger or weaker as 'required'.
Which I am grateful for, but makes experimentation too complex for me.
and
components can be damaged/worn out by 'over use'
or lose effectiveness due to lack of use.
so
after that long and winding preamble, I believe that,

if you keep forcing your body in one direction (alkaline)
components that counteract the non-normal conditions will be stressed, possibly damaged
components that could produce the (alkaline) conditions will loose effectiveness if/when required.

I do not know what 'normal' is

[Edited on 2-10-2018 by Sulaiman]

Melgar - 2-10-2018 at 02:21

Quote: Originally posted by Sulaiman

Is it true that humans can live a full length, healthy, active life,
eating only vegetable matter ?

_____________________________________________________
I have no moral or ethical objections to flesh eating
I eat flesh daily because I like it, and my mind and body can handle it,
but I can see a need to reduce flesh consumption as arable land area and marine stock decrease, while population increases.

I am much more concerned with :
. how we treat each other,
. how we treat animals,
. and the unethical practices of many of our corporate food producers.
(both vegetable and animal food producers)

Yes. It is possible for people to subsist entirely on plant matter, however it could take some research and effort to maintain intake of things like B vitamins at healthy levels.

There is definitely a need to reduce meat consumption, however a great deal of land in the world is not well-suited for growing crops, and is therefore used to graze livestock. You can't just convert cattle ranches into strawberry farms.

Excellent

Sulaiman - 2-10-2018 at 02:54

"Yes. It is possible for people to subsist entirely on plant matter,"

This means that as many people as possible should be encouraged to be vegetarian.
That will leave much more meat for me.
mmmmm...

Mr. Rogers - 2-10-2018 at 06:39

Quote: Originally posted by Sulaiman

Is it true that humans can live a full length, healthy, active life,
eating only vegetable matter ?

Yes, absolutely. Many people live this way.

There is a big focus on things like B-vitamins and iodine, but in the medical literature, there is not a single case of a veggie eater being deficient in these without *also* being malnourished.

If you live in the Western world, just think about how many foods you eat that are fortified with B-vitamins. I think a single can of Red Bull has something like a *years* supply of B12 (12,0000ug or something like that). That's not to say you can drink one can of Red Bull a year as a vitamin supplement, just that these vitamins are common in store-bought foods and only small amounts are required.

Anyway, if this is of concern, you can just pop a pill. There's no ethical quandary to do doing so.

[Edited on 2-10-2018 by Mr. Rogers]

Tsjerk - 2-10-2018 at 06:58

Redbull contains a couple days worth of B12. Couple off years worth of B12 could actually be stored by the body, if a single consumption of that amount could be taken up by the body is another question, as you need intrinsic factor in the gut to bind the vitamin before it can be absorpted.

Non animal products do not contain any B12; non of it. Therefor you cannot live solely on vegetables. Dairy products do suffice though. Without fortified diet a vegan will get vitamine shortages. Saying a vegan diet is fine because in the modern world fortified foods are available doesn't cut it for me. In the modern world a vegan will be fine, but only on the modern world...

Vegetables can be properly digested by humans, but only when cooked. Raw vegans develop malnutrition quickly.

Mr. Rogers - 2-10-2018 at 07:07

Quote: Originally posted by Tsjerk

Saying a vegan diet is fine because in the modern world fortified foods are available doesn't cut it for me. In the modern world a vegan will be fine, but only on the modern world...

But we're living in the modern world, are we not?

Don't confuse veganism with some type of appeal to nature. I don't know any vegan that claimed their diet is natural, only that it's ethical.

Mr. Rogers - 2-10-2018 at 07:23

Quote: Originally posted by JustTalker

You have to consider other unhealthy practices like cooking, mixing, preserving, growing inappropriately, storage, which are all harmful.
Oh, let me guess, it has not been proven that it is harmful?

I think most people have made some type of risk assessment and determined these are beneficial activities. Cooking food makes it easier for humans to digest and potentially safer as it neutralizes pathogens that we're no longer able to deal with.

I could also end up with cancer or salmonella from the way I cook food. but I don't shun cooking because of this.

Melgar - 2-10-2018 at 07:39

Quote: Originally posted by JustTalker

It is simply acidic blood, even if not acidic by pH, then acidic by lack of alkali elements like Ca.

If your blood had no calcium ions in it, you'd find yourself dead in pretty short order.

Quote:

Blood can be different, urine can be different, breath can be different, sweat can be different, and nobody's same.
It is not standard as you think. Sure, yes up to some point, with certain parameters, but not all parameters.

But only slightly different. Blood must have a pH of 7.4, and stay within a very narrow range. People have over 99.9% of our DNA the same, and so we have far more in common than we probably realize.

Quote:

Also you who talk about how it is not efficient to grow strawberries instead of livestock, please prove it.
I can prove you are wrong if i wanted to test it in real life. Growing plants is much more efficient than growing animals.

Thermodynamically, obviously plants are more efficient. But produce has to be shipped fresh, in refrigerated trucks. A lot is wasted, since fresh fruit has a short shelf life. There's also the parts of the plant we don't use, and there can be a lot of that. For potatoes, we don't use the above-ground part at all. With cattle, by comparison, we use every single part for something. Far more than the American Indians ever used. See: the hot dog.

Really though, most people can't tell the difference between good soil and bad soil. It just all looks like dirt to them. California dirt looks the same as Kansas dirt. Farmers know the difference though, just try and convince a cattle rancher in Kansas to using his land to grow strawberries, and see what his reaction is.

I'm not sure why I have such strong opinions on this subject. Probably because of all the time I spent in NYC with all these people who wouldn't know the first thing about farming actual acres of land. But they seemed convinced that farmers are all in the pockets of big agribusiness, and were just too ignorant to know any better. Apologies if I've inadvertently lumped anyone here into that category.

AJKOER - 10-11-2018 at 14:40

Quote: Originally posted by unionised

In the real world, any excess alkali in the diet will be excreted in the urine. The body has several robust systems in place to maintain pH.
So an "alkaline diet" is meaningless. It's the sort of nonsense that people use when they want to sell you "healing crystals"

Iron in the blood is strongly bound to proteins specially evolved for the purpose. The concentration of free Fe++ or Fe+++ ions is practically nil.

On reflection, the body rigorously maintaining its pH may have consequences!

Let me tell you a story about a neighbor I once had. He was a nice old man probably in the 60s who one day went for a walk. His hip bone fractured likely from frailty due to calcium deficiency. As apparently calcium is used to neutralize acid in the body, having a diet that is either acidic (or produces acidic products) may eventually have serious consequences!

What is most disturbing about this point, is that I can recall but once talking to healthcare person (doctor, nurse, …) and was never told that maybe a price was to be paid for eating say, red meat sometime down the road. This is either due to ignorance or perhaps even greed (as Big Pharma can't make money selling Calcium/Magnesium pills) but, in any event, I look at it as poor medical practice.

On one occasion, I actually recall a conversation with a teaching doctor, no less, with whom I try to discuss diet. To my shock he pointed to a food chart on his desk. The latter in my opinion, is actually more of a political document than anything to do with healthcare science telling you how much vegetables, protein,..., are recommended in your average daily diet.

[Edited on 10-11-2018 by AJKOER]

unionised - 10-11-2018 at 14:45

Quote: Originally posted by AJKOER

...I can never recall any healthcare person (doctor, nurse, …) ever telling me there was maybe a price to be paid for eating say, red meat, ...

Get better medical care.
http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/

Incidentally, pH adjustments in the body are usually based on carbonate/ bicarbonate rather than calcium.

AJKOER - 10-11-2018 at 14:57

Quote: Originally posted by unionised

Quote: Originally posted by AJKOER

...I can never recall any healthcare person (doctor, nurse, …) ever telling me there was maybe a price to be paid for eating say, red meat, ...

Get better medical care.
http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/

Incidentally, pH adjustments in the body are usually based on carbonate/ bicarbonate rather than calcium.

Thanks Unionised, but I have ammended my comment due to a single recollection with a teaching doctor no less. As he actually refused to discuss diet, I recall this event. I don't believe it was the doctor, it was the management (AMA police whose interests are not aligned with my health goals).
--------------------------------------------

That is great advice on your provided link!

Unfortunately, in my opinion, the odds of a World Health Report available on any doctor's desk in the USA is worst than the mega million lottery.
---------------------------------------------

Interestingly, calcium deficiency results from low Ca levels in the blood. Foods like cow's milk, containing casein (see https://www.healthline.com/health/allergies/casein#caseinfre...) may cause an allergic reaction (since people are not cows) which may reduce the absorption of minerals!

[Edited on 10-11-2018 by AJKOER]

kulep - 11-11-2018 at 06:07

When people talk about cancer rates in humans they seem to forget we didn't evolve as a long-lasting individuals species. 150 thousand years ago when we came to be an induvidual 40 years old was an elder, so it's logical we can double our lifespan living in captivity —as any other animal—

Elephants, tortoises, whales, and other long lasting animals have many DNA repairing mechanisms on many levels, that range from single point damage to telomere shortening.

Life has already found a way to preserve genetic information for many many years. Keep some cells alive, make an entire new individual from those with a very fast replication rate, and then wait untill the original cells die. Works like a charm, except that those old cells want to stay around longer for some reason.

If all people understood how many things are happening just inside a single ordinary cell, they wouldn't believe how the fuck we can be alive for so much time.

unionised - 11-11-2018 at 06:24

Quote: Originally posted by kulep

When people talk about cancer rates in humans they seem to forget we didn't evolve as a long-lasting individuals species. 150 thousand years ago when we came to be an induvidual 40 years old was an elder, so it's logical we can double our lifespan living in captivity —as any other animal—

Elephants, tortoises, whales, and other long lasting animals have many DNA repairing mechanisms on many levels, that range from single point damage to telomere shortening.

.

It seems you think tortoises have good DNA repair because they live a long time.
I think they live a long time because they have good DNA repair.

Tsjerk - 11-11-2018 at 06:58

Quote: Originally posted by AJKOER

Let me tell you a story about a neighbor I once had. He was a nice old man probably in the 60s who one day went for a walk. His hip bone fractured likely from frailty due to calcium deficiency.

[Edited on 10-11-2018 by AJKOER]

BS, Yes, severe calcium deficiency does cause osteoporosis, but it is close to impossible to have a diet in western society so poor in calcium it causes osteoporosis. Calcium is so abundant it is very hard to gain an insufficiency. Osteoporosis is caused by genetics, which is supported by the fact osteoporosis is correlated with hormone unbalances.

https://jeanhailes.org.au/health-a-z/bone-health/causes-of-o...

Even anorexia is correlated to osteoporosis because of hormonal unbalances, and not by the lack of calcium intake.

Quote: Originally posted by AJKOER

As apparently calcium is used to neutralize acid in the body
[Edited on 10-11-2018 by AJKOER]

BS, carbonate/bicarbonate are. Calcium, except for being a spectator ion calcium has nothing to do with pH maintenance.

Quote: Originally posted by kulep

Elephants, tortoises, whales, and other long lasting animals have many DNA repairing mechanisms on many levels, that range from single point damage to telomere shortening.

I don't think so. Level of metabolism is more correlated than DNA repair mechanisms (humans on a diet so minimal it slows down metabolism, live significantly longer). The animals which are closest relatives to humans that actually have a DNA repair system different than us, are amphibians. Among mammals there are very few too none differences in DNA repair mechanisms.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2851235/

Quote: Originally posted by AJKOER

Interestingly, calcium deficiency results from low Ca levels in the blood. Foods like cow's milk, containing casein (see https://www.healthline.com/health/allergies/casein#caseinfre...) may cause an allergic reaction (since people are not cows) which may reduce the absorption of minerals
[Edited on 10-11-2018 by AJKOER]

What are you trying to say here? I read; low levels of calcium are needed for calcium deficiency. A foreign (not foreign also works btw) compound is needed to cause an allergic reaction. An allergic reaction can cause lowered absorption of minerals.
Yes, all very true. But except for a little irony of cow milk causing low calcium absorption I don't see anything scientifically interesting in this statement.

[Edited on 11-11-2018 by Tsjerk]

[Edited on 11-11-2018 by Tsjerk]