Someone I know recently suffered what turned out to be a very irritated stomach lining. So much that she was prescribed a <something>-pump inhibitor once a day.
She's better now but earlier she happened upon these pages with charts showing alkaline and acid foods [no pH just some vague categories]. What also struck me as counter-intuitive is statements that citrus fruits are actually alkaline once ingested. I thought citric acid was derived from citrous fruits?

Furthermore, how much of an affect do various foods and beverages have on stomach pH anyway, I understand it is typically within a range of 2 - 3.5.

When I looked into this I found out about another diet I hadn't heard of; the Alkaline diet.

Mostly bunk. The human stomach has evolved over many years to work under acidic conditions.
The proton pump makes it acidic, not the food you eat.
http://www.vivo.colostate.edu/hbooks/pa ... ietal.html

Alan C wrote: What also struck me as counter-intuitive is statements that citrus fruits are actually alkaline once ingested. I thought citric acid was derived from citrous fruits?

The basic idea is that raw food is alkaline, cooked/processed food becomes acidic. So tomatoes eaten raw will be alkaline, and tomato sauce will be acidic. Not sure what to think of the acidic/alkaline diet, but it seems to encourage you to eat more raw food (fruits and vegetables) than meat (which has to be cooked).

It's simply that in the "alkaline diet" woo the terms "acidic" and "alkaline" are completely divorced from their actual meanings. It's just labelling particular foods as "sinful" or "holy", but rather than directly saying those things it appropriates scientific language in order to provide a superficial veneer of respectability.

Arcanyn wrote:It's simply that in the "alkaline diet" woo the terms "acidic" and "alkaline" are completely divorced from their actual meanings. It's just labelling particular foods as "sinful" or "holy", but rather than directly saying those things it appropriates scientific language in order to provide a superficial veneer of respectability.

Exactly.

IMHO, "toxin" is probably the most misused.

Nicko wrote:

Arcanyn wrote:It's simply that in the "alkaline diet" woo the terms "acidic" and "alkaline" are completely divorced from their actual meanings. It's just labelling particular foods as "sinful" or "holy", but rather than directly saying those things it appropriates scientific language in order to provide a superficial veneer of respectability.

Exactly.

IMHO, "toxin" is probably the most misused.

Oh most definitely, gotta sell them 'detox' kits!

Alan C wrote:

Nicko wrote:

Arcanyn wrote:It's simply that in the "alkaline diet" woo the terms "acidic" and "alkaline" are completely divorced from their actual meanings. It's just labelling particular foods as "sinful" or "holy", but rather than directly saying those things it appropriates scientific language in order to provide a superficial veneer of respectability.

Exactly.

IMHO, "toxin" is probably the most misused.

Oh most definitely, gotta sell them 'detox' kits!

Indeed. Who amongst us can honestly say we've never squirted some yoghurt up our arse?

juju7 wrote:
Indeed. Who amongst us can honestly say we've never squirted some yoghurt up our arse?

That might actually do something, though.

Kurzweil has explained that the idea behind acid/alkaline diet is not merely about pH level, otherwise you might as well drink soapy water. Alkaline diet is supposed to be oxygen reductive, in other words, anti-oxidant. Not sure if his science is valid though.

quas wrote: Not sure if his science is valid though.

Easily remedied: It's shit.

And what's th pH of that?

An antioxidant is a molecule which will interact with a free radical (a molecule with an unpaired electron) to end a radical chain reaction. It's not the same thing as simply reducing oxygen, which any elemental metal and a whole slew of other sorts of unrelated chemical reactions can do. This class of molecules is called "antioxidant" because we often see radical oxygen species, not because oxygen is all we need to look out for. Another faulty assumption is that antioxidants are good for you. That depends on which particular antioxidant we're talking about. Some will be good for you- and your safest bet is to stick with the ones a healthy body makes on its own- while others can be carcinogenic or harm you in other ways. Also please keep in mind that most of these larger molecules must get through the digestive system before they wind up in a part of your body where they'll be readily absorbed and yet antioxidants are tremendously reactive compounds. What do you suppose the odds are that they'll get through the acidic environment of your stomach, followed by the basic environment of your duodenum, without managing to find something to react with? The good news is that a body that's functioning properly will make its own antioxidants, thus saving you the trouble of wasting your time eating them- and it will make them available in places where they're much more likely to survive to encounter a free radical rather than hoping they survive a long and perilous travail through your digestive tract.

To sum up: Eating foods high in antioxidants probably doesn't help you out all that much. This is being borne out by the largely equivocal results obtained via double blind studies and meta-analyses. It is simply another "super-food" myth being promulgated by those marketing fad diets to the credulous for obscene amounts of ill-gotten gain.

THWOTH wrote::lol: And what's th pH of that?

Human stool tends to have a very slightly basic pH of between 7.0 and 7.5.

ScholasticSpastic wrote:

THWOTH wrote::lol: And what's th pH of that?

Human stool tends to have a very slightly basic pH of between 7.0 and 7.5.

So I guess, if you're on an alkaline diet, you can eat shit.

quas wrote:Kurzweil has explained that the idea behind acid/alkaline diet is not merely about pH level, otherwise you might as well drink soapy water. Alkaline diet is supposed to be oxygen reductive, in other words, anti-oxidant. Not sure if his science is valid though.

In other words, it has nothing to do with acidity or basicity - antioxidants can just as easily be acidic as they can be basic.

Arcanyn wrote:

quas wrote:Kurzweil has explained that the idea behind acid/alkaline diet is not merely about pH level, otherwise you might as well drink soapy water. Alkaline diet is supposed to be oxygen reductive, in other words, anti-oxidant. Not sure if his science is valid though.

In other words, it has nothing to do with acidity or basicity - antioxidants can just as easily be acidic as they can be basic.

The alkaline diet theory has a sister theory, the alkaline water diet. Kurzweil was referring to those who criticise alkaline water. The critics say it's not possible to turn water into alkaline, but that's only true for pure distilled water. In mineral water, you can ionise the water such that it becomes alkaline (this can be verified with a pH meter).

The critics also said, if alkaline water is what you want, why not just add soap or baking soda to the water? Kurzweil further responds that this alkaline water is different. Baking soda water is not oxygen reductive, which means it is not an anti-oxidant. On the other hand, the sort of alkaline water that he drinks has become alkaline through an ionising process, it can now impart electrons to free radical molecules.

Read more:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantastic ... ve_Forever

quas wrote:Kurzweil further responds that this alkaline water is different. Baking soda water is not oxygen reductive, which means it is not an anti-oxidant. On the other hand, the sort of alkaline water that he drinks has become alkaline through an ionising process, it can now impart electrons to free radical molecules.

Read more:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantastic ... ve_Forever

I sincerely hope you're not serious about this idiot. Alkaline water isn't oxygen reductive period. Not with soap. Not with baking soda. Not with naturally occurring minerals from the spring between Minerva's thighs. Not anywhere at all. At least, not any more so than anything else with an abundance of negative charge. All that demonstrates is a willful ignorance of chemistry to court his cult following. This "ionized water" bullshit is nothing shy of an attempt to find a better way to part idiots from their money than the already-successful bottled water scam.

Forgot to give the proper link:

http://www.fantastic-voyage.net/ReaderQ ... m#alkaline

ScholasticSpastic wrote:I sincerely hope you're not serious about this idiot. Alkaline water isn't oxygen reductive period. Not with soap. Not with baking soda. Not with naturally occurring minerals from the spring between Minerva's thighs. Not anywhere at all.

Kurzweil has said that soap/baking soda water is not oxygen reductive. Water that contains minerals in it, can be ionised (in a process similar to electrolysis?) such that it becomes alkaline water that is oxygen reductive.

At least, not any more so than anything else with an abundance of negative charge.

Such as?

quas wrote:Forgot to give the proper link:

http://www.fantastic-voyage.net/ReaderQ ... m#alkaline

As I mentioned earlier in this discussion, the stomach and duodenum are going to provide very active environments for attacking reactive chemical species. Even if all you needed for dealing with free radicals was a preponderance of negative charge (how this deals with negatively charged radicals is a pretty big question that is probably beyond your quack's capacity to answer), these still represent reactive chemical species (else they wouldn't quench radical chain reactions) and taking them the long way via your digestive tract is still a very stupid idea.