for those of you who heard acidosis sucks, but want to know why 
Oy vey.
There have been recent posts on this that need not be repeated.
I understand completely your posting it and it seeming to make sense: the article at first sight seems scientific-sounding and seems to make sense, and so seems a great thing to share. No disagreement on how it can seem.
But looking closer reveals a different story.
To avoid needless repetition I will say only this in this thread:
Countless individuals according to this theory are on a chronically acidic diet.
According to this theory, these individuals must chronically be losing calcium from their bones to make up for it.
However, plenty, the great majority in fact, of these individuals in fact have essentially the same bone mass this year as they did last year. In many cases, a little more bone mass. Particularly letās say teenagers eating an acidic diet.
Therefore they absolutely, positively had no chronic loss of calcium ādespiteā their acidic diet.
Therefore this theory is wrong in claiming resulting calcium loss or claiming this is the only mechanism for regulating pH. Absolutely positively, demonstrably not true.
QED, finis, end of story. No more to be said.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Oy vey.
There have been recent posts on this that need not be repeated.
I understand completely your posting it and it seeming to make sense: the article at first sight seems scientific-sounding and seems to make sense, and so seems a great thing to share. No disagreement on how it can seem.
But looking closer reveals a different story.
To avoid needless repetition I will say only this in this thread:
Countless individuals according to this theory are on a chronically acidic diet.
According to this theory, these individuals must chronically be losing calcium from their bones to make up for it.
However, plenty, the great majority in fact, of these individuals in fact have essentially the same bone mass this year as they did last year. In many cases, a little more bone mass. Particularly letās say teenagers eating an acidic diet.
Therefore they had absolutely, positively had no chronic loss of calcium ādespiteā their acidic diet.
Therefore this theory is wrong in claiming resulting calcium loss or claiming this is the only mechanism for regulating pH. Absolutely positively, demonstrably not true.
QED, finis, end of story. No more to be said.
[/quote]
Agreed. According to these studies, the increased potential bone dissolution that can accompany a high protein diet, is accompanied by an increase in calcium absorption, more or less canceling out the effects of bone dissolution
http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/short/128/6/1048
Nice analysis Bill, have you read that in the past already? I didnāt see any of the statistics in the article about their bone mass though.
What exact ātheoryā are you referring to? I must have missed something since I read the article merely stating information rather than proposing a theory.
Cool article there BigRassler
āA dietary calcium-to-protein ratio >= 20:1 (mg:g) probably provides adequate protection for the skeleton.ā
Is that realistic? 300g protein would require 6000mg calcium.
āAgreed. According to these studies, the increased potential bone dissolution that can accompany a high protein diet, is accompanied by an increase in calcium absorption, more or less canceling out the effects of bone dissolutionā
I thought this was a common sense issue from what I learned reading some articles, on the assumption that increased protein (acidosis) leads do decreased calcium in bonesāso extra calcium clearly helps as well as increasing alkalinity.
That or Iām misinterpreting the point of both articles.