Nourished Magazine :: Wisdom to thrive by

COMMENTS - 8 Responses

1. 1. Sandy Smith
   Feb 6th, 2007 at 4:08 pm

   Sally,
   When I came across the following it seemed to make sense that acid would be the best to kill parasites. This does, however, seem contrary to most of what I have been told about acid/alkaline.

   Can you bring this together for me?

   Thank you,
   Sandy

   Eczema : One of my clients called about an Eczema problem…she can’t believe how fast it is going away, after 15 years of suffering with it. I treated her for candida (yeast) infection. The infection comes from inside the body and is in her bloodstream. I am treating that with anti-yeast herbs and a diet that will acidify the Ph in her gut.
   Her saliva and urine were in the acid range when checked with Ph paper, so she had been told she was too acid. Quite the contrary…bad yeast grows best in an alkaline Ph, as do parasites. When she followed my instruction to check the Ph of her feces, thereby the gut, it went into the dark blue! (Alkaline).

   I want to tell you that it is important to drink cabbage juice…about 1 ounce per day, mixed with other green juices, if preferred. Also, Magnesium Sulfate (Epsom Salts) is one of the best external treatments I have ever seen for healing eczema and psoriasis (Yeast). You can dissolve about 3 handsfull of Epsom Salts into a bathtub of warm water and soak for 20-30 minutes in it once a day…use the time to relax and meditate, perhaps light a candle and put soft music on. This will also help to grow out healthy nails and will eliminate another side-effect of yeast; thick callouses on the feet!
   Thanks Nancy Brokaw, MS, CCN, NC, HHP for this submission:)
2. 2. Sally
   Feb 8th, 2007 at 4:04 pm

   It is not good to have lactic acid build up in your cells, but you definitely want to have lactic acid in your digestive tract. The good bacteria that are supposed to populate the digestive tract secrete lactic acid. When there is a good, acid pH, then candida cannot proliferate.
3. 3. Tris
   Sep 17th, 2007 at 4:31 pm

   I felt compelled to provide a detailed response to this article. I would like to provide a defense to alkaline-forming eating, because I think it is a shame to see conventional theories - largely theories put forward by the medical community - leek into acid-alkaline discussion.

   To get the unpleasant issue out of the way first: your passing claim that alkaline-forming foods have the usual purpose of justifying some form of vegetarianism is absolutely stupendous. It is difficult to find any vegetarian, nor alkalizing-eater, who maintains their way of eating long-term because they were persuaded to. Rather, the decision to continue the diet is birthed from a consistent sensation which is experienced once the diet has begun. This form of diet requires discipline, large amounts of discipline for some, and the incentive to continue this diet needs to be present throughout the process - a “justified endorsement” is certainly not such an incentive!

   The “theory” of food residue pH certainly does not derive from burning the food. This is certainly the case for how the over-simplistic concept of calories is tested. However, determining pH upon metabolism is more comprehensive, as the actual pH residue studies, nowadays, are tested internally. The output of the body is tested once a control is established, and is compared to functions such as excretion and respiration when the specific foods is ingested and metabolized. With this mind, it is - indeed - very important to stress that there is not a complete correlation between burning a food and metabolizing it; and that is because the acid-alkaline camp must continually stress this, when articles such as this one report that they claim otherwise.

   In regards to the claim that the pH of the blood, saliva, fluids and urine are not dependent on diet, does the writer have any test to put to this claim? In fact, is someone like the writer - who does not endorse this approach - in a position to say that this is the case when, I can assume, the writer has never recommended this diet; hence, never tested it? On the contrary, for someone such as myself, who has received regular urine pH readings while coaching hundreds of people eating alkaline. I can safely determine, beyond any trace of reasonable doubt, that the writer is highly incorrect with this claim. I see without fail that the pH of the urine will become very acidic in the first 3-4 days, sometimes even dropping down into the 4’s as the bulk of the toxins and acids are removed from the system. Then, in the process of getting all the acids out of the body, the urine will slowly come up to slightly alkaline as there are no longer acids to excrete. While it is well established that the blood will receive alkalizing buffers after metabolizing acids (assuming it has any buffers remaining), it is only in extremely rare cases that the alkaline needs to be buffered with acid. The lowering of the pH is not a balancing mechanism, it is the body releasing unwanted acidic toxins from the body, given that it now has the alkaline environment to safely do so.

   Has the writer actually spoken to people who eat this way? I recently spent six months eating 80% green leafy vegetables, yet alone vegetables of any kind, and had absolutely no issues of this “over-alkaline” concern. What is more, I know of people who have maintained 80% leafy vegetables, going on two years now, and have had the exact same lack of concern with their experience. In fact, we both found our health continually improving, and certainly have never faced an issue where our body is craving more acid than we are providing in the small fraction of our diets. The article claims that slightly-acid urine is completely normal, and this mechanical system is not an indication to avoid high-protein, acid-forming foods. This may be the case, but I would comfortably make the claim that living on 80% leafy vegetables for two years, and *still* finding ways to be healthier is justification enough. Of course, these experiences may sound ridiculous to anyone who tends to stay in laboratories and text books rather than attempt to experience these changes for themselves (and I mean anyone, not the writer, but anyone). This lack of willingness to actually test and experience is the reason why alkaline eating has more mysticism than support and approval.

   The above paragraph naturally asks questions to the article’s claims about protein, and the claim that exclusive fruit- and vegetable-eating is dangerous. Explaining the “Many people with perfectly normal blood pH values…” in the context of tissue deteriorative conditions shows a lack of basic understand of the alkaline diet. The alkaline diet does not intend to change the pH of the blood! All industries know that the blood’s ideal pH is 7.365, and this only has to drop 0.1 or 0.2 before the body is in a critical condition. Instead, alkaline foods provides the body with buffers, which stop the body needing to feed off minerals in its’ own bones and tissues in order to buffer the blood from the constant ingestion of acid. My “vast majority” of cases, when it comes to whether meat and eggs causing internal acidosis, is very much conflicting to the writer’s. Among the thousands of introductions I have received from those requesting my services of advice, I receive many people who come to me with “terminal” illnesses which are rooted in acidosis - many coming straight from the hospital, where a medical doctor has told them “there is nothing anyone can do”. Is it a coincidence that no less than 80% of these cases I receive come from those who have followed a high-protein, low-carbohydrated (Atkins) diet, notoriously rich in animal proteins? From this alone, I personally see an incredibly high amount of cases where animal proteins do cause the blood to become very acidic.

   Speaking of protein, what is the basis to say that animal protein is a good-quality protein? Would the writer say that animal protein is better quality than the protein of fruits, vegetables and legumes? If so, why would this be? It cannot be due to the percentage of protein present in the food. The average animal product contains about 40% protein, while the humble *broccoli* contains 55-60%. It cannot be that meat is digested better than plant-based foods. In the same example, meat will sit in the stomach for multiple hours, but broccoli will be largely broken down in under half an hour on an empty stomach. Additionally, it is not good for meat-endorsers to cover how much animal protein is actually absorbed, compared to plant-protein. So, I am wondering how animal proteins are a better source of protein than plant-based protein. I assume there must be a reason.

   The alkaline-diet community has responded to the eskimo findings for more than 40 years. It is well established that the body’s need for more protein and acid in the diet increases as the person inhabits further away from the equator. The eskimo findings are an issue of the body’s metabolical assimilation based on extreme environmental latitude, and by no means indicates that acid-forming animal products will not cause acidosis for most of the world’s population living in desert, mediterranean or tropical climates!

   As the article states, it is certainly important that everyone needs minerals in their diets. However, the claim that an exclusive fruit and vegetable diet will not provide these minerals is an incredibly unresearched claim. There are leafy vegetables, seaweeds and pollens which - one food, in themselves - contain every mineral known to man. If we want to look at what is causing mineral deficiencies in our bodies, it would be much more telling to look at people’s lack of understanding of the mineral content in food, such as is demonstrated in this article, and not assume that exclusive fruits and vegetables will cause this.

   In regards to the claim that hypoglycemics and diabetics are put in danger by an exclusive fruit and vegetable diet, my experience indicates otherwise. I have seen hundreds of hypoglycemia and diabetes cases not only tolerated, not only controlled, not only diminished, but completely *reversed* by recommending such a diet. However, this is not without some fine-tuning of advice, the most obvious being to initially avoid high-sugar fruits in order to place less demand on insulin release. Among these results, I have seen absolutely no circumstance where the condition has deteriorated further over a long-term period from an exclusive fruit and vegetable diet. I ask, potentially with this experience aside, if there is an established reason why it is claimed that the removal of animal products and grains can be dangerous to those with insulin-based disorders.

   When it comes to testing fluid pH, upon a mere few extra minutes of research, one could discover that saliva is in fact the least indicative area to test for internal pH status. It is little wonder that your saliva pH will remain constant with any diet which does not kill in a matter of months. Saliva is kept netural/alkaline so that the amylase will survive, and begin to break down food as it is chewed. Saliva will stay at this pH level regardless of what is happening in the body, and what other pH testing methods indicate. For instance, while the writer of this article maintained the saliva pH reading, she may not have seen her urine drop to potentially the 5’s or 6’s the morning after dinner, as the body potentially struggled overnight to eliminate all the acids from the previous evening’s ingestion of meat.

   With all due respect, the “bright idea” to test your dog’s fluid pH - to see whether eating meat leads to acidosis - is not a bright idea at all. Canines have completely different assimilation, digestive, metabolic and excretion systems to humans. Even upon testing a fluid from the dog which was actually indicative, there are so many factors that distinguish dogs and humans, that such a test provides absolutely indication.

   My message to the writer of this article is this: Whether or not you have learnt anything from reading this, I hope it at least raises some questions to your level of understanding the pH approach to eating. Also, the level of understanding of the relevant factors of health and nutrition in general. I hope this has reinforced your conviction to develop a more comprehensive understanding of this topic and others before, for instance, releasing articles which are full of misinformed statements; potentially leading readers to become more misinformed, more confused, and essentially have their health deteriorated even further. Thank you.
4. 4. Sally Fallon
   Sep 24th, 2007 at 4:04 pm

   I would like to provide a defense to alkaline-forming eating, because I think it is a shame to see conventional theories - largely theories put forward by the medical community - leek into acid-alkaline discussion.

   I would not describe myself as the “medical community”! But it is true that the medical community by and large does not subscribe to the notion that we should eat mostly fruits and vegetables in order to make the body more alkaline.

   To get the unpleasant issue out of the way first: your passing claim that alkaline-forming foods have the usual purpose of justifying some form of vegetarianism is absolutely stupendous.

   It may be stupendous, but it is true. The acid-alkaline theory has been used since its inception to promote a diet based largely on fruits and vegetables.

   It is difficult to find any vegetarian, nor alkalizing-eater, who maintains their way of eating long-term because they were persuaded to. Rather, the decision to continue the diet is birthed from a consistent sensation which is experienced once the diet has begun.

   This is the opposite of the testimonials we receive. People continue on this vegetarian diet even though they start to feel terrible and have health problems because the diet gurus have persuaded them that it is (pick one or more) healthier, more spiritual, better for the planet, gives them a better sex life, guarantees they will not get cancer, etc. etc. It really boggles the mind the arguments used to promote vegetarianism and the degree to which people will adhere to the diet even when it makes them very sick.

   This form of diet requires discipline, large amounts of discipline for some, and the incentive to continue this diet needs to be present throughout the process - a “justified endorsement” is certainly not such an incentive!

   It requires discipline because it is not a natural diet. The body begins to crave the foods it needs–namely, animal protein and fats.

   The “theory” of food residue pH certainly does not derive from burning the food.

   Yes it does, that is how it started in the 1930s. As time went on, other things were added, such as more and more complicated ways of assessing the pH of various bodily fluids and tissues, but it started by burning foods to assess the levels of acid or alkaline minerals.

   This is certainly the case for how the over-simplistic concept of calories is tested. However, determining pH upon metabolism is more comprehensive, as the actual pH residue studies, nowadays, are tested internally. The output of the body is tested once a control is established, and is compared to functions such as excretion and respiration when the specific foods is ingested and metabolized. With this mind, it is - indeed - very important to stress that there is not a complete correlation between burning a food and metabolizing it; and that is because the acid-alkaline camp must continually stress this, when articles such as this one report that they claim otherwise.

   In regards to the claim that the pH of the blood, saliva, fluids and urine are not dependent on diet, does the writer have any test to put to this claim?

   They are dependent on the diet, but not on the “alkaline” diet. As stated, we need, for example, protein and phosphorus to maintain the body’s complicated system of pH regulation.

   In fact, is someone like the writer - who does not endorse this approach - in a position to say that this is the case when, I can assume, the writer has never recommended this diet; hence, never tested it? On the contrary, for someone such as myself, who has received regular urine pH readings while coaching hundreds of people eating alkaline. I can safely determine, beyond any trace of reasonable doubt, that the writer is highly incorrect with this claim. I see without fail that the pH of the urine will become very acidic in the first 3-4 days, sometimes even dropping down into the 4’s as the bulk of the toxins and acids are removed from the system. Then, in the process of getting all the acids out of the body, the urine will slowly come up to slightly alkaline as there are no longer acids to excrete. While it is well established that the blood will receive alkalizing buffers after metabolizing acids (assuming it has any buffers remaining), it is only in extremely rare cases that the alkaline needs to be buffered with acid. The lowering of the pH is not a balancing mechanism, it is the body releasing unwanted acidic toxins from the body, given that it now has the alkaline environment to safely do so.

   But the question is, how does the person feel? Do their health problems improve in the long term? As stated, this might be OK for the short term for detoxification, but in the long term a diet based on fruits and vegetables leads to deficiencies.

   Has the writer actually spoken to people who eat this way?

   Lots and lots of them. We hear almost daily from people who adopted this way of eating and got into lots of trouble.

   I recently spent six months eating 80% green leafy vegetables, yet alone vegetables of any kind, and had absolutely no issues of this “over-alkaline” concern. What is more, I know of people who have maintained 80% leafy vegetables, going on two years now, and have had the exact same lack of concern with their experience. In fact, we both found our health continually improving, and certainly have never faced an issue where our body is craving more acid than we are providing in the small fraction of our diets.

   Lots of mineral blockers in those green leafy vegetables. No traditional culture eats this way.

   The article claims that slightly-acid urine is completely normal, and this mechanical system is not an indication to avoid high-protein, acid-forming foods. This may be the case, but I would comfortably make the claim that living on 80% leafy vegetables for two years, and *still* finding ways to be healthier is justification enough.

   If it makes people healthier, than that is good. Certainly a diet like this after a lifetime of processed food will lead to an improvement in the short term. But in the long term, this diet is not adequate to support a healthy life.

   Of course, these experiences may sound ridiculous to anyone who tends to stay in laboratories and text books rather than attempt to experience these changes for themselves (and I mean anyone, not the writer, but anyone). This lack of willingness to actually test and experience is the reason why alkaline eating has more mysticism than support and approval.

   Well, we do not stay in a laboratory but look at the laboratory of living human societies.

   The above paragraph naturally asks questions to the article’s claims about protein, and the claim that exclusive fruit- and vegetable-eating is dangerous.

   Yes, that is exactly what we claim. Such a diet is very dangerous.

   Explaining the “Many people with perfectly normal blood pH values…” in the context of tissue deteriorative conditions shows a lack of basic understand of the alkaline diet. The alkaline diet does not intend to change the pH of the blood! All industries know that the blood’s ideal pH is 7.365, and this only has to drop 0.1 or 0.2 before the body is in a critical condition. Instead, alkaline foods provides the body with buffers, which stop the body needing to feed off minerals in its’ own bones and tissues in order to buffer the blood from the constant ingestion of acid. My “vast majority” of cases, when it comes to whether meat and eggs causing internal acidosis, is very much conflicting to the writer’s.

   Of course these protein foods need to be consumed with the fats, to provide fat-soluble vitamins for the assimilation of minerals and protein. People can get in trouble with animal foods if they do not eat them in the right way.

   Among the thousands of introductions I have received from those requesting my services of advice, I receive many people who come to me with “terminal” illnesses which are rooted in acidosis - many coming straight from the hospital, where a medical doctor has told them “there is nothing anyone can do”. Is it a coincidence that no less than 80% of these cases I receive come from those who have followed a high-protein, low-carbohydrated (Atkins) diet, notoriously rich in animal proteins? From this alone, I personally see an incredibly high amount of cases where animal proteins do cause the blood to become very acidic.

   See the above remark. If they are following the advice to eat lots of protein on a lowfat diet, they will certainly get into trouble!

   Speaking of protein, what is the basis to say that animal protein is a good-quality protein? Would the writer say that animal protein is better quality than the protein of fruits, vegetables and legumes? If so, why would this be? It cannot be due to the percentage of protein present in the food. The average animal product contains about 40% protein, while the humble *broccoli* contains 55-60%. It cannot be that meat is digested better than plant-based foods. In the same example, meat will sit in the stomach for multiple hours, but broccoli will be largely broken down in under half an hour on an empty stomach. Additionally, it is not good for meat-endorsers to cover how much animal protein is actually absorbed, compared to plant-protein. So, I am wondering how animal proteins are a better source of protein than plant-based protein. I assume there must be a reason.

   Any protein from vegetable foods will be deficient. But as long as we have a small amount of animal foods in the diet, then we can use the plant-based protein sources to advantage.

   The alkaline-diet community has responded to the eskimo findings for more than 40 years. It is well established that the body’s need for more protein and acid in the diet increases as the person inhabits further away from the equator. The eskimo findings are an issue of the body’s metabolical assimilation based on extreme environmental latitude, and by no means indicates that acid-forming animal products will not cause acidosis for most of the world’s population living in desert, mediterranean or tropical climates!

   What about herders living in desert regions of the globe. Their diet is based almost exclusive on meat and milk products? They seem to do fine in a hot climate!!

   As the article states, it is certainly important that everyone needs minerals in their diets. However, the claim that an exclusive fruit and vegetable diet will not provide these minerals is an incredibly unresearched claim. There are leafy vegetables, seaweeds and pollens which - one food, in themselves - contain every mineral known to man. If we want to look at what is causing mineral deficiencies in our bodies, it would be much more telling to look at people’s lack of understanding of the mineral content in food, such as is demonstrated in this article, and not assume that exclusive fruits and vegetables will cause this.

   In regards to the claim that hypoglycemics and diabetics are put in danger by an exclusive fruit and vegetable diet, my experience indicates otherwise. I have seen hundreds of hypoglycemia and diabetes cases not only tolerated, not only controlled, not only diminished, but completely *reversed* by recommending such a diet. However, this is not without some fine-tuning of advice, the most obvious being to initially avoid high-sugar fruits in order to place less demand on insulin release. Among these results, I have seen absolutely no circumstance where the condition has deteriorated further over a long-term period from an exclusive fruit and vegetable diet. I ask, potentially with this experience aside, if there is an established reason why it is claimed that the removal of animal products and grains can be dangerous to those with insulin-based disorders.

   So we are now down to a diet of just vegetables? Where is the vitamin A, vitamin D, cholesterol, complete protein, zinc, B6 adn B12 in this diet?

   When it comes to testing fluid pH, upon a mere few extra minutes of research, one could discover that saliva is in fact the least indicative area to test for internal pH status. It is little wonder that your saliva pH will remain constant with any diet which does not kill in a matter of months. Saliva is kept netural/alkaline so that the amylase will survive, and begin to break down food as it is chewed. Saliva will stay at this pH level regardless of what is happening in the body, and what other pH testing methods indicate. For instance, while the writer of this article maintained the saliva pH reading, she may not have seen her urine drop to potentially the 5’s or 6’s the morning after dinner, as the body potentially struggled overnight to eliminate all the acids from the previous evening’s ingestion of meat.

   My body does not struggle with meat and I seem to have led a full and normal life without ever testing the pH of my urine. There are much more important ways to assess a person’s health than this focus on the urine.

   With all due respect, the “bright idea” to test your dog’s fluid pH - to see whether eating meat leads to acidosis - is not a bright idea at all. Canines have completely different assimilation, digestive, metabolic and excretion systems to humans.

   Actually it is quite similar. Our digestive system is much more similar to a dog’s than to an herbivore.
   Even upon testing a fluid from the dog which was actually indicative, there are so many factors that distinguish dogs and humans, that such a test provides absolutely indication.

   The point was that the dog had alkaline saliva even though his diet was exclusively animal-food based.

   See what’s new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.
5. 5. Tris
   Sep 25th, 2007 at 1:49 pm

   Hi Sally. Regardless of what I think about your article and your response to my own, thanks for taking the time to respond to my comment with the same detail that I responded to your article.
6. 6. Sally Fallon
   Sep 26th, 2007 at 9:43 am

   You are most welcome! I had an interesting discussion with my husband this morning about acid-alkaline.

   Years ago he suffered from a hip problem. He had not been eating well–a lot of “junk tucker.” He went to a Chinese acupuncturist who not only did acupuncture but punched and kneaded him all over–he said it was very painful. He had lots of sore spots which the doctor attributed to a too-acid condition. He told him not to eat tomatoes, oranges and nuts.

   My husband followed this advice and whether it was eliminating these foods or possibly improving his diet overall or the acupuncture, he had no more problems with his hip. He definitely stayed away from nuts because they gave him indigestion and made him feel sore.

   When we met, one of our first discussions was about nuts. He said he didn’t eat them because they were “too acid.” I explained that if nuts were properly prepared (that is, soaked in salt water and then gently dehydrated, the “crispy nuts” in my book), they would not be “too acid” and cause digestive problems. He followed my advice and was delighted to find that he could eat nuts again without any problems.

   So what is the point of this rambling story? One is that the term “acid diet” or “acid condition” is thrown around and used to describe a lot of conditions and “acid foods” has a lot of different meanings for different people. Although “acid” has a precise chemical definition, is a vague and general term when used in discussions of diet and health, so we need to be cautious in using it.

   But the main point is that when any whole, natural and traditional food is giving trouble, the approach we take is not to eliminate that food, but to figure out how to include the food. Not to say that you can’t eat something, but to be as inclusive as possible. Not to suggest a diet that requires a lot of discipline to follow, but one that is delicious, satisfying and that does not cause cravings. So, in the example of nuts, we prepare them by soaking in salt water to get rid of enzyme inhibitors; in the case of grains, we soak them in an acidic solution or prepare via sourdough method to get rid of the many antinutrients in grains; in the case of dairy foods, we recommend raw dairy, which is so much easier to digest than pasteurized; in the case of green leafy vegetables, we recommend that they be cooked and eaten with butter or some other animal fat so that the minerals are liberated and absorbed; in the case of meat, we teach that meat must be eaten with the fat and the organs so that we have the vitamin A we need to digest the meat; we recommend unrefined salt so that it does not cause health problems; natural sweeteners to satisfy the sweet tastebuds in our mouth; and, finally, lacto-fermented foods and gelatin-rich broth to make all foods more digestible. (We had a letter from someone who was unable to eat meat until he ate it with a broth–he was thrilled!)

   I think we often apply pleasure anxiety to food, feeling that we need to deprive ourselves or punish ourselves with a spartan diet in order to achieve enlightenment, spiritual advancement, the perfect cholesterol level or urine pH, you name it. But food, like everything else in life, is to be tasted, enjoyed, savored as well as give us strength and health. It is important to make an effort to avoid all processed foods, and to properly prepare the natural foods we eat–and those with severe health problems will need to be more careful about this than those who are relatively healthy–but the goal is a healthy emotional relationship with our food and enjoyment in every bite. Sally

1. 1 2nd Edition: Carnival of Nourishment Pingback on May 9th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
2. 2 Diet Changes I have made (Part 2) « Constant State of Flux Pingback on Oct 3rd, 2007 at 1:17 am

COMMENT ON THIS ARTICLE: