Guest guest Posted May 18, 2008 Report Share Posted May 18, 2008 Is all Calcium always positively charged? And is Phosphorous always negatively charged? And are negatively charged ions subject to alteration by certain processing, for example cooking? Tonio Re: Iodine uptake pH , > Thing is, the Eskimos tended to eat *whole fish* ... bones and all, > and esp. they enjoyed the heads. They ate whole birds too, > bones and all. So while the meat part was acidic, there was > no lack of calcium. The body can " decide " how much of the > calcium to absorb, so the actual balance between meat > and calcium can vary quite a bit. I think the deeper point here is that the meat being acid thing is nonsense. This has been disproven by researchers associated with the University of Connecticut working under Jane Kerstetter at Yale who showed that the increase in urinary Ca after high-meat diets is 80% accountable by a meat-induced increase in Ca absorption, which occurs even at " deficient " (vis-a-vis RDA) Ca intakes, and that there is no increase in bone resorption and in fact a non-significant trend towards lower bone turnover. They also showed with isotope tracers that a greater proportion of urinary Ca comes from bone on low-protein diets than on high-protein diets. Gaffney-Stromberg showed in rats a statistically significant decrease in bone turnover, strenthening the interpretation of the human research that non-significant trend toward lower bone turnover was a real effect -- and in any case, it clearly isn't increasing. Also, calcium does not and absolutely cannot neutralize an acid. Both are positively charged. Phosphorus, which is negatively charged, can, and that is why phosphate makes up a major buffer system to neutralize strong acids in the urine. > I tend to agree with Price that the blood doesn't get acidic > unless you are in acidosis, in which case the paramedics > will probably be there. But in our society we really *don't* > get enough minerals, esp. compared to about any pre-neolithic > culture. Shoot, even in Medieval Europe, they were baking > " blackbirds in a pie " and eating them whole, and the Japanese > eat whole baby fish and shrimp with the shells. We *need* > minerals to de-acidify protein-rich foods ... not because > the blood will go acid, but because we will exhaust our > mineral stores and end up with weak bones. And maybe > other problems ... calcium is involved in > everything from tooth health to migraines and PMS > and maybe cancer. Yes but the research consistently shows that high-meat diets benefit the bones without respect to calcium intakes. Chris ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.20 - Release Date: 5/17/2008 12:00 AM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2008 Report Share Posted May 19, 2008 Is it true that seaweed is full of mercury? If so...Can you find seaweed that is not? -- Warmest Regards, Robin Little The koreans add seaweed to their kimchi sometimes. I haven't tried it much myself. Adding seaweed to most foods though, doesn't add a huge amount of " seaweed taste " per se. It just makes the food taste better. Umami. MSG was created to have the same effect as seaweed, which also contains glutamates, though seaweed doesn't seem to affect people the way MSG does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2008 Report Share Posted May 19, 2008 Another thing to consider in this discussion is the digestability of foods, which in turn affects the absorbability. Digestability may or may not affect the pH though. Fruits are the easiest thing to digest normally, then veggies, then dairy products then meat unless one has an allergy, etc. Meat has complex proteins. Anything which is not completely digested forms toxins in the system. These toxins are worse when they are made from meat than from fruits and veggies if they are eaten at the same time. GB > > I think the differences are largely in vocabulary. What you just > said, that more Ca is is excreted after eating meat, is pretty > much what I've read too. Eat meat: need calcium. I also agree > that eating meat makes for *stronger* bones, in general. > > As for why eating meat makes your urine more acidic, I don't know > the exact reaction that takes place, but it seems to be pretty > much accepted at least in vet circles. For cats, it is desirable > to have acidic urine so they don't get blocked urinary tracks, and > a high meat diet does that: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2008 Report Share Posted May 19, 2008 And digestability really varies by person. Some people really can't handle sugars well, they lack the enzymes to break them down, so sugars give them massive dysbiosis. But other people can't digest meat, because they lack HCL. On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 11:11 AM, Guru K <greatyoga@...> wrote: > Another thing to consider in this discussion is the digestability of > foods, which in turn affects the absorbability. Digestability may or > may not affect the pH though. Fruits are the easiest thing to digest > normally, then veggies, then dairy products then meat unless one has > an allergy, etc. Meat has complex proteins. Anything which is not > completely digested forms toxins in the system. These toxins are > worse when they are made from meat than from fruits and veggies if > they are eaten at the same time. > > GB > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2008 Report Share Posted May 19, 2008 I forgot to put in a conclusion to my last response. When things are easy to digest, then the body is not spending so much energy on digesting. It can spend the energy on healing. GB > > Absorbency of foods does change with cooking, so I agree > there. Minerals themselves don't actually change though. You > can bake calcium carbonate all day in the oven, and it's > still calcium carbonate, unless maybe you burn it up and > turn it into some other form. But even then, the calcium > atom is till calcium. It won't turn into something else unless > you put it in a nuclear furnace. > > Usually though, when people are talking about raw > foods they are talking about vegies, and it's not > clear that raw vegies are more digestible than > cooked vegies. Might be true for some vegies, but > often they are more digestible cooked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.