 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Asthma / May 2006Info re: high acid levels
I stated that high acid levels are a factor in some disorders such as kidney disease and breathing difficulties. I recommended this book: "The Acid-Alkaline Diet" by Christopher Vasey, N.D. The author explains how to use urine pH strips that can be purchased at some drug stores. The goal is to eat the proper foods and take the mineral supplements in order to maintain a neutral pH (number 7). People that have kidney disease and other disorders may have too much acid in their body (number 5 or below on pH scale). Healthy people don't need to read the book or worry about their pH levels. Their kidneys and other organs maintain a neutral pH level (number 7 or higher). Someone pointed out that it's impossible to change the urine pH levels since it's controlled by the body. That's not true. For example, if someone tests their urine pH and it's number 5 or below--that person could take a capsule containing a mixture of minerals and their pH level would become neutral (number 7 or higher). If that person did NOT take the mineral capsule, the body would draw calcium from the bones in order to seek a neutral level. The end result would be various type of bone disorders such as osteoporosis. That's the reason that many people that have kidney disorders end up with bone related diseases. If you want to learn more about this subject, read the book. Jason  SignatureNEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice. We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people. >I stated that high acid levels are a factor in some disorders such as >kidney disease and breathing difficulties. I recommended this book: > >"The Acid-Alkaline Diet" by Christopher Vasey, N.D. That book is pure quackery. Consumer beware. If you don't believe me ask any physiologist, biochemist or physician. The body maintain pH within very narrow range. There is no scientific evidence that diet can change your body pH. Vasey is a naturopathic quack. RC > >I stated that high acid levels are a factor in some disorders such as > >kidney disease and breathing difficulties. I recommended this book: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > RC What's your opinions about these authors. They also wrote books related to this subject and agree that high acid levels can be reduced by eating the correct type of diet and taking vit., minerals and herbs. "The pH Miracle" by Robert O. Young, Ph.D. and Shelly Young "Why People Don't Heal and How They Can" by Carolyn Myss, Ph.D. Anybody that has low pH levels (<5) could bring up their levels to normal (7) by taking one capsule of minerals. I have tried the experiment several times and it has worked every time that I have tried it. I usually keep my levels close to normal (6 to 7.5) by eating a proper diet. Visit this site: http://www.naturalhealthschool.com/acid-alkaline.html SignatureNEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice. We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people. >> >I stated that high acid levels are a factor in some disorders such as >> >kidney disease and breathing difficulties. I recommended this book: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >"Why People Don't Heal and How They Can" >by Carolyn Myss, Ph.D. Do not have a clue. But if they say that you can change the pH in your body by diet they are full of sh.t. You might be able to change the pH of your urine but so what. The urine does not reflect blood pH. In other words your arterial blood pH could be 7.41 (normal) and your urine pH could be between 6.5 and 8.0. >Anybody that has low pH levels (<5) is dead if it is arterial or venous pH. Urine pH rarely falls below 5. If it does it may be due to some metabolic disorder and you should get it checked out. Urinary pH does *not*, I repeat does *not* reflect the body pH. You blood pH is closely regulated. Arterial is about 7.41 and venous about 7.36. When the pH falls much outside this range it is pathologic. The body has mechanisms to control blood pH. If your arterial pH falls below 7 you will likely die. Urine pH has a much wider normal range of about 6.5 to 8.0 and fluctuates throughout the day. >could bring up their levels to normal (7) >by taking one capsule of minerals. I have tried the experiment several times >and it has worked every time that I have tried it. I usually keep my >levels close to normal (6 to 7.5) by eating a proper diet. You are completely wasting your time. >Visit this site: >http://www.naturalhealthschool.com/acid-alkaline.html Pure quackery. Testing your urine does not reflect blood acid level. The only way to test blood pH is to get a blood sample. As I said if anyone doubts me just ask any biochemist, physiologist or physician. The science behind this stuff is pure crapola. RC > >> >I stated that high acid levels are a factor in some disorders such as > >> >kidney disease and breathing difficulties. I recommended this book: [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > > RC Testing the blood pH is superior to testing the urine pH. However, it's impractical for most people (unless we are employed in a medical lab) to check our blood pH several times per day. As you may know, doctors tell their elderly patients to take calcium supplements each day. There is a reason for this. The kidneys of elderly people don't work as well as the kidneys in young and healthy people. The kidneys attempt to maintain a neutral level of pH (number 7). If an acid state develops within the body, the kidneys draw calcium from the bones in order neutralize the acid state. The end result is a bone related disease. I made this point to prove that doctors know that they can alter the pH state by the use of calcium supplements. It's possible for anyone to prevent the development of bone related diseases by keeping track of our pH levels. If you choose not to be concerned about your urine pH levels, so be it. Don't be shocked if you end up with a bone related disease before you die. Jason SignatureNEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice. We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people. >Testing the blood pH is superior to testing the urine pH. Testing the urine is practically useless to determine body pH unless the pH is very out of whack. > As you may know, doctors tell >their elderly patients to take calcium supplements each day. There is a >reason for this. Yes, to prevent osteoporosis. It is also good to take magnesium along with the Calcium. > The kidneys of elderly people don't work as well as the >kidneys in young and healthy people. The kidneys attempt to maintain a >neutral level of pH (number 7). If an acid state develops within the body, >the kidneys draw calcium from the bones in order neutralize the acid >state. You are believing the pseudoscientific claptrap. The body does not develop an "acid state". If it did you would die. It is critical that the body maintain blood pH within a *very* narrow range and unless there is a disease state it does that very well. The book tends to suggest that many people have an acidic state which makes them prone to disease. There is no scientific evidence for this assertion. IOW a person with a urine ph of 7.0 may well have essentially exactly the same blood pH as someone with a urine pH of 8.0. As I said before, urine pH does not correlate with blood ph unless the urine ph is extremely high or low indicating some kind of disease state. But the range of normal urine pH is quite wide compared to normal range of blood pH. > The end result is a bone related disease. I made this point to >prove that doctors know that they can alter the pH state by the use of >calcium supplements. You can alter the pH state of the urine but not the bloodstream. The different ph values of the urine simply reflect the body's success in maintaining blood pH within a narrow range. > It's possible for anyone to prevent the development >of bone related diseases by keeping track of our pH levels. Please provide clinical studies to show that osteoporosis can be prevented by keeping track of urine pH levels. >If you choose >not to be concerned about your urine pH levels, so be it. Don't be shocked >if you end up with a bone related >disease before you die. If I live long enough I suspect I may develop all kinds of diseases. You have to die of something and cannot live forever. However I doubt that bone related disease (osteoporosis) is going to be a problem for me as my diet, supplements and weight bearing exercises will reduce my chances of that happening. I also am a male and very large boned so that will likely help greatly in that regard. But if it reduces your anxiety about getting a bone related disease by checking your urine pH I said more power to you. RC >Jason > >Testing the blood pH is superior to testing the urine pH. > [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > > RC RC, I agree that checking the serum (blood) calcium levels is superior to keeping track of the urine pH. Let's end this discussion since we both have a fixed point of view related to this subject. Healthy people don't have to be concerned about their urine pH levels. I have a neighbor that is much youger than I am. I asked him to check his urine pH after he drank two cups of coffee (high acid). The test strip indicated that he had a neutral pH (#7). In other words, healthy people don't need to worry about their pH levels. However, if anyone has serious health problems, I encourage them to check their urine pH levels and to read the book that I mentioned. Jason SignatureNEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice. We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people. >> >Testing the blood pH is superior to testing the urine pH. >> [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > mentioned. > Jason As the other poster has pointed out, the book is based on pseudoscience, and as such, is an unreliable source for making decisions about one's health. Naturopathic doctors (as the author) are infamous for concocting specious syndromes and cures in order to sell books and treatments. Claims about "acid states" in the human body are absolute hogwash, and should be a tip-off for anyone that the book is pure quackery. >>> >Testing the blood pH is superior to testing the urine pH. >>> [quoted text clipped - 81 lines] >"acid states" in the human body are absolute hogwash, and should be a >tip-off for anyone that the book is pure quackery. Sadly there are individuals like Jason who are likely scientifically illiterate and buy into this nonsense. If you have a real health problem this book is the last place that you should look. Once again urine pH within a very wide range (~6.0-8.0) is perfectly normal and does not indicate any disease state. The pH of the urine changes in order to maintain the proper pH of the blood which as I said must be tightly controlled. RC >RC, >I agree that checking the serum (blood) calcium levels is superior to >keeping track of the urine pH. It is superior because checking the urine pH is useless. If testing urine pH was valid then conventional medicine would be using urine pH as a screening device. They don't. Some quack naturopath wrote a book and hoped to make a buck off of it by convincing people of his bullshit. You swallowed it hook, line and sinker. > Let's end this discussion since we both >have a fixed point of view related to this subject. Mine is based on science. Yours on faith. > Healthy people don't >have to be concerned about their urine pH levels. I have a neighbor that >is much youger than I am. I asked him to check his urine pH after he drank >two cups of coffee (high acid). The test strip indicated that he had a >neutral pH (#7). In other words, healthy people don't need to worry about >their pH levels. And if his pH was 6.5 or 7.5 he also would not have to worry about his health. Once again urine pH has a very wide range normally. It is not necessary for good health to keep urine ph at 7.0. If you disagree please post objective proof. Anecdotes don't count. >However, if anyone has serious health problems, I >encourage them to check their urine pH levels and to read the book that I >mentioned. If anyone has serious health problems I encourage them to see a qualified physician and follow his/her advice which is unlikely to include monitoring their urine pH. RC Are we not human? Are we Alien? LOL Next! ~Melanie > >RC, > >I agree that checking the serum (blood) calcium levels is superior to [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > RC, You are incorrect related to one of your points. Doctors do make use of urine pH level tests to screen for various diseases. If you don't believe me, read this book: "Laboratory Test Handbook--With Disease Index" by David Jacobs, M.D. Wayne DeMott, M.D. Dwight Oxley, M.D. On page 901-902, the authors explain how to conduct urine pH tests and the importance of urine pH tests. It states on page 902 the following: "Urine pH is a crude indicator of the acid-base balance of the body..." It states on page 901 the following: "urine pH is part of a routine urinalysis". There is addtional information in that book about urine pH tests on the following pages: 716, 794, 886,1027 and 1125 Jason SignatureNEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice. We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people. >RC, >You are incorrect related to one of your points. Doctors do make use of urine >pH level tests to screen for various diseases. I am sorry. I did not mean to say that urine pH test is completely useless for all purposes. But for purposes of seeing if you have too much acid in your body, it is unless as I said the value is way out of whack. To repeat, normal pH of urine has a very wide range. Two people can have urine Ph's very different and yet have essentially the same blood pH. RC >>RC, >>You are incorrect related to one of your points. Doctors do make use of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > can have urine Ph's very different and yet have essentially the same > blood pH. The main values of urine pH is in figuring out what kind of stones, infections, or specific renal disease the person might have. If the person is otherwise healthy docs don't pay any attention to it. (Jason) The next time you go in for a physical and then discuss the lab work with your doc ask him what your sugar and cholesterol were after he has had a chance to look over the labs. Chances are he will be able to tell you without looking again. Then ask what the urine pH was. I guarantee he won't know without checking. Why? He probably didn't even look at it since it is irrelevant except in very specific situations. Signature00doc > >>RC, > >>You are incorrect related to one of your points. Doctors do make use of [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Why? He probably didn't even look at it since it is irrelevant except in > very specific situations. You are correct. During my last physical exam, the doctor did not mention the pH figure on the urine test. He only mentioned those items that were outside the normal limits. SignatureNEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice. We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people. >> Why? He probably didn't even look at it since it is irrelevant except in >> very specific situations. > >You are correct. During my last physical exam, the doctor did not mention >the pH figure on the urine test. He only mentioned those items that were >outside the normal limits. Next time you see that doctor why don't you ask him about the usefulness of your checking the pH of your urine. RC > >> Why? He probably didn't even look at it since it is irrelevant except in > >> very specific situations. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > RC RC, He would probably say that it's a waste of time. Most regular doctors know very little about alternative medicine. However, there are now several hundred alternative doctors in America that are experts on regular medicine but are also experts on alternative medical care. We have such a doctor in my town but my insurance company (HMO) will not allow him to be my doctor. I'm sure that he would understand the importance of checking the pH of urine (for patients that have serious medical problems). I don't believe that healthy people should check the pH of their urine since it would almost always tests between 6 to 7.5 regardless of what they ate. My neighbor drinks about a dozen cups of coffee every day and never has high acid levels (<5). Jason SignatureNEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice. We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people. > RC, > He would probably say that it's a waste of time. He would be right. > Most regular doctors know > very little about alternative medicine. OK - now you know more than all those conventional docs - after reading - what - 1-3 books? > However, there are now several > hundred alternative doctors in America that are experts on regular > medicine but are also experts on alternative medical care. Some of those guys are experts in both and are fine healers. Some are just huksters who bothered to get an MD. Anyone who goes around checking your urine pH and selling you herbs to correct it is in the later camp. If the pH is all that matters then why not just take a teaspoon of baking soda? > We have such a > doctor in my town but my insurance company (HMO) will not allow him to be > my doctor. Does he take insurance at all? > I'm sure that he would understand the importance of checking > the pH of urine (for patients that have serious medical problems). You don't know that. > I don't > believe that healthy people should check the pH of their urine since it > would almost always tests between 6 to 7.5 regardless of what they ate. The statement is true but the reason is false. > My > neighbor drinks about a dozen cups of coffee every day and never has high > acid levels (<5). The tell him to stop checking it. Signature00doc > > RC, > > He would probably say that it's a waste of time. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > You don't know that. You are correct--I was guessing--I should have stated: It's my guess that he would understand the importance of checking the pH of urine... > > I don't > > believe that healthy people should check the pH of their urine since it [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > The tell him to stop checking it. He came to the conclusion on his own that he did not need to continue to check the pH of his urine. I agreed with his decision and told him so. Even the doctor that wrote the book believes that healthy people don't need to check their urine pH levels. I don't know if the alternative doctore takes insurance. I just know that the Blue Cross plan that I am a member of does not have him on their list of doctors that I could choose from. I called some of those doctors and they refused to accept me since they already had too many patients. I ended up with an excellent doctor--he's an internist. I don't know as much about medicine and medical care as any doctor. I have never been to medical school but have worked in a hospital. I know more about alternative medicine than SOME regular doctors. For example, how many regular doctors know about all of the herbs sold in health food store? I have a book that provides information about all of those herbs. Jason SignatureNEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice. We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people. >I know more about alternative medicine than SOME regular doctors. For >example, how many regular doctors know about all of the herbs sold in >health food store? Sometimes a little knowledge is a dangerous thing:-) The real question is whether you have a good understanding of the objective evidence to support various alternative medicine claims. You see just because some book tells you something does not necessarily make it true. RC >> >> Why? He probably didn't even look at it since it is irrelevant except in >> >> very specific situations. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >RC, >He would probably say that it's a waste of time. I agree with you. > Most regular doctors know >very little about alternative medicine. Actually new doctors know more about alternative medicine than doctors in the past. Because so many people use various alternative medical treatments med schools have been training students about the use and misuse. > However, there are now several >hundred alternative doctors in America that are experts on regular >medicine but are also experts on alternative medical care. I am not sure what you mean. Are you saying that there are several hundred true MD's that practice alternative medicine? > We have such a >doctor in my town but my insurance company (HMO) will not allow him to be >my doctor. I'm sure that he would understand the importance of checking >the pH of urine (for patients that have serious medical problems). Well he might believe that it is important. However there is no scientific evidence that it is. Believing something to be useful and actually have it be useful are two different things. > I don't >believe that healthy people should check the pH of their urine since it >would almost always tests between 6 to 7.5 regardless of what they ate. Do you believe that all "unhealthy" people should check their urine pH? Or do you think that only people with certain medical conditions should? If it is the either then the question is where is the objective evidence that it is useful other than what some people claim. You see conventional or evidence based medicine uses tests that have been shown to be valid and reliable. Alternative practitioners often use tests that have not been shown to be valid and reliable. Of course it is your choice to test your urine pH. It is unlikely that an evidence based conventional doctor would agree that such a practice is more than a waste of time except perhaps in very specific clinical conditions. For example if one has a type of kidney stone that forms in an acid urine you would want your urine to be more basic and vice versa. > My >neighbor drinks about a dozen cups of coffee every day and never has high >acid levels (<5). Why should he? Has a study ever been done comparing urine pH following excessive coffee consumption? RC >Jason > >> >> Why? He probably didn't even look at it since it is irrelevant except in > >> >> very specific situations. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >RC, > >He would probably say that it's a waste of time. I agree with you. > > Most regular doctors know > >very little about alternative medicine. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > treatments med schools have been training students about the use and > misuse. That's great. > > However, there are now several > >hundred alternative doctors in America that are experts on regular > >medicine but are also experts on alternative medical care. > > I am not sure what you mean. Are you saying that there are several > hundred true MD's that practice alternative medicine? I am referring to doctors that have graduated from medical college that have devoted lots of time in regard to learning about alternative medicine. They combine their knowledge of what they learned in medical school to what they have learned about alternative medicine. They have to decide on a case by case basis whether to use regular or alternative medicine and medical care. For example, if a patient has high BP and high Chol. levels--the alternative doctor would tell the patient to use fish oil and Garlic Extract and exercise. If the BP and Chol. levels continued to be higher than normal--the doctor would prescribe statins. Many regular doctors would choose a different approach: They would precribe statins and nothing else. I should note that alternative doctors were the first ones to prescribe CoQ10 to be taken as long with statin pills. > > We have such a > >doctor in my town but my insurance company (HMO) will not allow him to be [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > scientific evidence that it is. Believing something to be useful and > actually have it be useful are two different things. I agree that they are two different things. > > I don't > >believe that healthy people should check the pH of their urine since it [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > have been shown to be valid and reliable. Alternative practitioners > often use tests that have not been shown to be valid and reliable. Yes, I believe that unhealthy people should test their urine pH levels for at least a week to determine if high acid levels are a factor in their diseases. If after a week, their pH remained normal--they should discontinue the experiment. That's my opinion and I don't expect you or anyone else to agree with me. > Of course it is your choice to test your urine pH. It is unlikely > that an evidence based conventional doctor would agree that such a [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Why should he? Has a study ever been done comparing urine pH following > excessive coffee consumption? No--he was complaining about stomach pain after he took a certain medication. I advised him to only take the pill after he ate a meal and to not drink coffee or a soft drink during the meal. I asked him to check his pH levels for a week to rule in or out acid related problems. It turned out that he did not have high acid levels which was good news for him since he was concerned that he had acid related problems. SignatureNEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice. We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people. > For example, if a patient has high BP and high >Chol. levels--the alternative doctor would tell the patient to use fish >oil and Garlic Extract and exercise. Actually many conventional doctors would recommend dietary changes to treat hypertension. For example the DASH diet has been shown in clinical trials to effectively treat hypertension. I know because I was hypertensive and it worked for me. Also my regular medical doctor who is not an alternative doctor is the one who recommended it before medication. You see conventional doctors don't make any extra money if they prescribe medication unlike some alternative doctors who make money selling various supplements. > If the BP and Chol. levels continued >to be higher than normal--the doctor would prescribe statins. >Many regular doctors would choose a different approach: >They would precribe statins and nothing else. That is just not true. How do you know what most conventional doctors would do? Experience is that most conventional doctors do recommend things like diet and exercise to help with various problems such as hypertension, high cholesterol, diabetes, etc. >I should note that alternative doctors were the first ones to prescribe CoQ10 >to be taken as long with statin pills. Whether they did or not is beside the point. The question is whether there is objective evidence that CoQ10 really works. >> > I don't >> >believe that healthy people should check the pH of their urine since it [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >the experiment. That's my opinion and I don't expect you or anyone else >to agree with me. How do you define excessively acidic urine pH? Below what number do you consider pathologic? In any case correlation does not imply causation. By this I mean that if you have a disease and your urine is acidic it does not mean that the acid is the cause of your problem. >> Of course it is your choice to test your urine pH. It is unlikely >> that an evidence based conventional doctor would agree that such a [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >did not have high acid levels which was good news for him since he was >concerned that he had acid related problems. Are you a doctor? Sounds like you are practicing medicine without a license if you are not. Is he seeing a doctor for his problem with stomach pain or are you his guinea pig? Why was he concerned he had an "acid related problem". Did you recommend a book to him or did you convince him he may have an acid problem? Stomach pain can be caused by many different things. It is important to determine the cause since some can be fatal. RC > > For example, if a patient has high BP and high > >Chol. levels--the alternative doctor would tell the patient to use fish [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > things like diet and exercise to help with various problems such as > hypertension, high cholesterol, diabetes, etc. Please note that I stated MANY regular doctors... That means that SOME regular doctors would encourage patients to use the DASH diet and exercise. I once had a doctor that prescribed statins for me without first discussing diet and exercise plans. > >I should note that alternative doctors were the first ones to prescribe CoQ10 > >to be taken as long with statin pills. > > Whether they did or not is beside the point. The question is whether > there is objective evidence that CoQ10 really works. Yes, there have been some medical studies that have proved that CoQ10 should be prescribed along with statins. Upon request, I will provide proof. If anyone else knows about those studies, please post. > >> > I don't > >> >believe that healthy people should check the pH of their urine since it [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > How do you define excessively acidic urine pH? Below what number do > you consider pathologic? I would define it as having levels at <5 on a regular basis for 5 consecutive days. > In any case correlation does not imply causation. By this I mean that > if you have a disease and your urine is acidic it does not mean that > the acid is the cause of your problem. I agree with you. However, the high acid levels should be discussed with a doctor. Various medical tests (including blood tests) would have to be done to figure out the reason for the high acid levels. For example, cancer and various types of kidney disease could cause high acid levels. Upon request, I could provide a list of diseases that cause high acid levels. That's one of the reasons, people that are sick should test their urine pH levels. That's also the reason urine pH is tested when a doctor arranges for a urine test. > >> Of course it is your choice to test your urine pH. It is unlikely > >> that an evidence based conventional doctor would agree that such a [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > license if you are not. Is he seeing a doctor for his problem with > stomach pain or are you his guinea pig? My neighbor knows that I am not a doctor. He has a regular doctor. The urine test strips can be purchased at one of the local drug stores. > Why was he concerned he had an "acid related problem". Did you > recommend a book to him or did you convince him he may have an acid > problem? > > Stomach pain can be caused by many different things. It is important > to determine the cause since some can be fatal. He has a doctor and I told him that he should discuss the problem related to the pills making his stomach hurt with his doctor. I don't know how his doctor solved the problem. He may have prescribed a different medication or reduced the dosage level. I know better than playing the role as a doctor or telling people that I am a doctor. I usually (unless I forget) remind people in posts that I am not a doctor. Most non-doctors don't do that. > RC SignatureNEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice. We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people. >> >I should note that alternative doctors were the first ones to prescribe CoQ10 >> >to be taken as long with statin pills. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >should be prescribed along with statins. Upon request, I will provide >proof. If anyone else knows about those studies, please post. If there are studies showing the efficacy then conventional doctors will likely be recommending their use. The problem with alternative practitioners is that they often make recommendations with no objective evidence to support it. And sometimes supplements may cause more harm than good. Just because something is natural or an herb or vitamin does not mean that it cannot cause harm if it has pharmacologic properties. >> >Yes, I believe that unhealthy people should test their urine pH levels >> >for at least a week to determine if high acid levels are a factor in their [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >I would define it as having levels at <5 on a regular basis for 5 >consecutive days. You have had a urine pH below 5 for five consecutive days? That is an extremely low urinary pH. Did you tell your doctor about that? What did he say? >> In any case correlation does not imply causation. By this I mean that >> if you have a disease and your urine is acidic it does not mean that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >be done to figure out the reason for the high acid levels. For example, >cancer and various types of kidney disease could cause high acid levels. References please. >Upon request, I could provide a list of diseases that cause high acid >levels. I request it. I would also like you to provide objective evidence that these diseases cause high acid state. I assume you are defining high acid state by the urinary pH test even though it is only a very crude test of body acid-base state. > That's one of the reasons, people that are sick should test >their urine pH levels. That's also the reason urine pH is tested >when a doctor arranges for a urine test. It is very unusual of urine pH to have much clinical significance. Doctors don't look at urinary pH and say "Wow that is low pH, we better check to see why". Next time you go to your conventional doctor ask him about how he uses the urinary pH test. You may be surprised. The guy who wrote the book about acid states and checking pH is likely a complete quack with no objective evidence to support his assertions. >> >> Of course it is your choice to test your urine pH. It is unlikely >> >> that an evidence based conventional doctor would agree that such a [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >My neighbor knows that I am not a doctor. He has a regular doctor. >The urine test strips can be purchased at one of the local drug stores. What do his doctors say? I know the urine test strips can be purchased at local drug store. They are likely a waste of time and money. >> Why was he concerned he had an "acid related problem". Did you >> recommend a book to him or did you convince him he may have an acid [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >He has a doctor and I told him that he should discuss the problem related to >the pills making his stomach hurt with his doctor. Did you tell him he should talk to his doctor about possible acid state? > I don't know how his doctor >solved the problem. He may have prescribed a different medication or reduced the >dosage level. I know better than playing the role as a doctor or telling >people that I am a doctor. I usually (unless I forget) remind people in >posts that I am not a doctor. Most non-doctors don't do that. Most non-doctors don't tell people they are not doctors? NSAIDs are commonly prescribed meds and can cause stomach pain/discomfort. RC >> RC > >> >I should note that alternative doctors were the first ones to prescribe CoQ10 > >> >to be taken as long with statin pills. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > extremely low urinary pH. Did you tell your doctor about that? What > did he say? My doctor knows that various blood tests and urine tests indicate that my kidneys are the source of the problem. I am following a special diet plan (mostly fruits and vegatables) to maintain a neutral pH level. I have a book that was written by a doctor that is a kidney specialist. The diet plan is in that book. He is not an alternative doctor but recommends various vit., minerals and herbs in the book. He also recommmends the use of urine test strips which I purchased at a local drug store. They are the same brand of test strips used by labs to test urine (aka urine dip test). That's where I first learned about pH test strips. > >> In any case correlation does not imply causation. By this I mean that > >> if you have a disease and your urine is acidic it does not mean that [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > References please. "Laboratory Test Handbook" by David Jacobs, M.D., Wayne DeMott, M.D. and Dwight Oxley, M.D. It states that the following disorders can be detected by the use of urine pH test strips: I will only list 5 of them: metabolic acidosis Diabetes melitus Respiratory acidosis Emphysema Urea-splitting bacteria (Proteus sp) Renal Tubular acidosis > >Upon request, I could provide a list of diseases that cause high acid > >levels. > I request it. I would also like you to provide objective evidence that > these diseases cause high acid state. I assume you are defining high > acid state by the urinary pH test even though it is only a very crude > test of body acid-base state. see above list. I could provide several more disorders upon request. As you may know, once a doctor notes from the urine dip test that a patient has high acid levels, the doctor would conduct other tests to rule out or in the results of the urine pH test. I have not stated in any post that the urine pH test is the only screening test that doctors use to discover high acid levels. I agree that its only a very crude test of body acid-base state. However, it's about the only test that patients can easily use at home to keep track of the their acid-base state. > > That's one of the reasons, people that are sick should test > >their urine pH levels. That's also the reason urine pH is tested [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > The guy who wrote the book about acid states and checking pH is likely > a complete quack with no objective evidence to support his assertions. I agree with you. However, doctors also do blood tests. If a doctor noticed that the urine pH test was <5--the doctor may check the blood test results to see other indicators to rule in or out acid related disorders. For example, if the serum creatinine test was above normal and the pH level was 4--the doctor may suspect Renal Tubular acidosis or some other type of kidney disorder. > >> >> Of course it is your choice to test your urine pH. It is unlikely > >> >> that an evidence based conventional doctor would agree that such a [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > Did you tell him he should talk to his doctor about possible acid > state? No, he already knew that he did not have a acid state as the result of making use of the pH test strips. Therefore, he only told the doctor that the pills made his stomach hurt. I don't know what actions his doctor took after he told him that the pills made his stomach hurt. > > I don't know how his doctor > >solved the problem. He may have prescribed a different medication or reduced the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Most non-doctors don't tell people they are not doctors? NSAIDs are > commonly prescribed meds and can cause stomach pain/discomfort. I don't recall the name of the medication that he was taking. I believe that it was a pain pill or muscle relaxer. He has been having pain in his leg as a result of poor circulation. SignatureNEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice. We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people. > If there are studies showing the efficacy then conventional > doctors [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > vitamin does not mean that it cannot cause harm if it has > pharmacologic properties. I don't have a dog in this fight, but your first statement isn't correct. There are studies showing the efficacy of a lot of things that haven't been accepted by conventional doctors. In some cases, it's because there haven't been enough studies, or enough large studies. In other cases, it's because it takes forever for the information researchers have proven to be accepted by the medical community. For example, researchers all over the world have been saying asthma is caused by different things, and in cases where it's caused by bacteria, it can be cured if you can eradicate the bacteria. Studies on this subject go back to 1991. Yet, if you mention this to most conventional doctors, they'll tell you asthma cannot be cured. Sometimes, even showing them the actual studies does no good. They won't accept it. I agree with you that alternative practitioners, if you mean naturopaths, etc., only prescribe herbs and supplements because they can't write prescriptions for drugs, and sometimes drugs are needed. I'm not sure he's talking about a naturopath. It sounds like Jason is seeing an M.D. who is also versed in alternative approaches. I would question whether his doctor is in any insurance network, because this might signal a problem with that doctor, but you can find doctors who prescribe both supplements and prescribed medicine who also accept insurance, and their integrity shouldn't be questioned simply because they're more open minded than many MD's. >> If there are studies showing the efficacy then conventional >> doctors [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >I don't have a dog in this fight, but your first statement isn't >correct. We can agree to disagree. > There are studies showing the efficacy of a lot of >things that haven't been accepted by conventional doctors. Examples please. > In >some cases, it's because there haven't been enough studies, or >enough large studies. Well if the studies are flawed then it is reasonable to wait until more or better studies are done before jumping on the bandwagon. And yet sometimes doctors will respond even when preliminary results of good studies appear promising. But there have been many cases where a first single study indicated efficacy but later studies were negative so it might pay to wait. > In other cases, it's because it takes >forever for the information researchers have proven to be [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >even showing them the actual studies does no good. They won't >accept it. Whether asthma can be truly cured is a matter of debate. Sometimes asthma spontaneously remits for reasons unknown. Sometimes it can go into remission only to recur later in life. > but you can find doctors who prescribe both supplements >and prescribed medicine who also accept insurance, and their >integrity shouldn't be questioned simply because they're more >open minded than many MD's. I agree. But when naturopaths make a profit from selling supplements that should cause concern. RC >> There are studies showing the efficacy of a lot of >>things that haven't been accepted by conventional doctors. > > Examples please. Many Doctors continue to prescribe Synthroid to people with thyroid problems instead of Armour, which provides both T-3 and T-4, despite the fact that many people don't find any relief from Synthroid, and studies indicate there isn't any greater risk to prescribing Armour. Many Doctors insist that if a patients basic thyroid numbers are in the normal range, they don't have thyroid disease, even though they're not testing for conversion which may be off and still allow for normal looking numbers. Many Doctors insist on prescribing synthetic hormones to their female patients when studies indicate links between some of them and breast cancer, and other studies indicate bioidentical drugs from compounding pharmacies are just as effective and less harmful. Many Doctors refuse to consider treating any ulcers with antibiotics. Many Doctors refuse to look at the studies with regard to asthma having more than one cause. Many Doctors refuse to even consider the use of ANY supplements, saying all that is needed is a multi-vitamin, and supplements are all snake oil. Many Doctors refuse to look at research involving rheumatoid arthritis and improvement brought on with antibiotics. I'm sure I could think of more, but I'm busy right now. > Whether asthma can be truly cured is a matter of debate. > Sometimes > asthma spontaneously remits for reasons unknown. Sometimes it > can go > into remission only to recur later in life. It's only a matter of debate among the small minded. Researchers all over the globe have been saying this for years, and some doctors are open minded enough to believe this and treat patients that fit a certain profile. Those who need to hang on to old theories, or to their asthma, feel this is still a matter of debate. I'll have to let Jim Quinlan know he's been in remission for ten years. I'm sure he'll get a laugh out of that. > >> There are studies showing the efficacy of a lot of > >>things that haven't been accepted by conventional doctors. [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > I'll have to let Jim Quinlan know he's been in remission for ten > years. I'm sure he'll get a laugh out of that. Hello again, Thanks for your excellent post. I can only think of two or three things to add to your excellent list. Alternative doctors were telling their patients that had high levels of cholesterol to take fish oil capsules, niacin and Garlic Extract dozens of years before regular doctors began to do it. I once had a doctor that prescribed statins without even discussing diet and exercise plans. Alternative doctors (in my opinion) are far superior to regular doctors. Jason before regular doctors done it. SignatureNEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice. We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people. Alternative doctors (in my opinion) are far superior > to regular doctors. I still don't know what you mean when you use the phrase, "Alternative Doctors", but if you mean naturopathic doctors who aren't DO's or MD's, then I'd have to disagree with you. I prefer MD's or DO's who do research and aren't afraid to try different approaches - and are able to prescribe medicine if needed. I just totally disagree with anyone who thinks that if something in a lot of studies works, our doctors would be using it. That's what the majority of people think, but it's not true. > Alternative doctors (in my opinion) are far superior > > to regular doctors. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > something in a lot of studies works, our doctors would be using > it. That's what the majority of people think, but it's not true. Alternative Doctors are doctors (aka M.D) that have graduated from medical college and also have an expert knowledge of vit., minerals and herbs. They are also referred to as "nutritional doctors". For example, if a patient has high chol. levels, most of them would first try a diet plan plus an exercise program-- and the use of fish oil, niacin and garlic capsules. If that did not work, they would precribe low dose statin pills. My biggest complaint with them is that many of them sell nutritional products such as vit., minerals and herbs in their newsletters and at their websites. To locate a nutritional doctor in your area, call ACAM at 1-800-532.3688 The best known alternative doctors in America (in my opinion) are Doctor Don Colbert <drcolbert.com> and Doctor Julian Whitaker <drwhitakermail.com> and <whitakerwellness.com> Dr. Whitaker has a clinic that has an entire team of alternative doctors on his staff. People from all over America visit the clinic. SignatureNEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice. We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people. >Alternative Doctors are doctors (aka M.D) that have graduated from >medical college and also have an expert knowledge of vit., >minerals and herbs. That is a strange definition of alternative doctor. Generally people say that alternative doctors are those who don't use pharmaceuticals in their practice and only use herbs and the like. That is what makes them alternative. If an MD first tries a nutritional approach for something like diabetes or hypertension that would hardly be alternative. It is pretty mainstream assuming that the blood pressure and/or blood sugar are not too high. >They are also referred to as "nutritional doctors". Never heard of that. I have heard of nutritionists but not "nutrition doctors". >For example, if a patient has high chol. levels, most of them would >first try a diet plan plus an exercise program-- >and the use of fish oil, niacin and garlic capsules. High dose niacin can be quite hepatotoxic. It is one example of a natural vitamin possibly causing damage to the body. I think that many doctors might try something other than medication depending on how high the cholesterol is and whether there is a family history of hypercholesterolemia suggesting that dietary intervention may not be effective. >If that did not work, they would precribe low dose statin pills. > >My biggest complaint with them is that many of them sell nutritional >products such as vit., minerals and herbs in their newsletters and >at their websites. That is how they make money. What I like about regular doctors is that they have no vested interest in prescribing drugs. They do it because they think it is the best course of action. RC > >Alternative Doctors are doctors (aka M.D) that have graduated from > >medical college and also have an expert knowledge of vit., [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > alternative. It is pretty mainstream assuming that the blood pressure > and/or blood sugar are not too high. That might be true for some of them but most of them prescribe medications for certain serious disorders. Example: UTI, infections, TB, asthma, etc. > >They are also referred to as "nutritional doctors". > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > hypercholesterolemia suggesting that dietary intervention may not be > effective. Most alternative doctors would not prescribe high dose niacin. Even regular doctors now precribe niacin. There is a medication called Khor-Con which is extended release niacin. My research indicates that it can cause liver problems so regular low dose niacin capsules are safer. I don't use the term "nutritional doctor" since it's too close to nutritionist. However, Dr. Colbert makes use of that term in his book which is entitled, "Toxic Relief". I read the book and he provides advice on how to get rid of toxic substances from our body by eating the proper foods. > >If that did not work, they would precribe low dose statin pills. > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > they have no vested interest in prescribing drugs. They do it because > they think it is the best course of action. That's a good point. I have heard that some doctors get under the table kick backs for prescribing certain medications. Please don't ask for proof since I read the information in a health magazine and I do not keep old copies of magazines. Does anyone know a website that has information related to the kickbacks that doctors get for prescribing certain medications. Jason SignatureNEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice. We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people. >>> There are studies showing the efficacy of a lot of >>>things that haven't been accepted by conventional doctors. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Synthroid, and studies indicate there isn't any greater risk to >prescribing Armour. Are you a doctor? What are your qualifications to determine which is the most efficacious form of thyroid to use. Are you aware that there is a conversion of T4 to T3 that naturally occurs in the body? Do you know why Armour may not be as good as Synthroid for treating hypothyroidism? Ever talk to an endocrinologist about why they prefer Synthroid to Armour? Maybe you should and get educated rather than to believe everything you read. Or do you have more training than an endocrinologist to make such a determination? >Many Doctors insist that if a patients basic thyroid numbers are >in the normal range, they don't have thyroid disease, even though >they're not testing for conversion which may be off and still >allow for normal looking numbers. Many doctors? How many and how do you know this is a problem? Is this a problem with internists or endocrinologists also? How do you get your information. Are you in the medical field? Please give your qualifications or objective evidence that what you are saying is true and not just your opinion. >Many Doctors insist on prescribing synthetic hormones to their >female patients when studies indicate links between some of them >and breast cancer, and other studies indicate bioidentical drugs >from compounding pharmacies are just as effective and less >harmful. The information about links between hormones and breast cancer has been conflicting over the years. It also depends on the type of breast cancer with respect to receptors but you probably already knew that. I trust that good doctors will use the current information and make their decisions based upon that understanding that subsequent studies may make their decisions invalid. It is not easy being a doctor considering all the conflicting information from studies. They do the best they can. >Many Doctors refuse to consider treating any ulcers with >antibiotics. Many? That might have been true many years ago but I think that most competent doctors realize that ulcers are often caused by Heliobacter pylorii and treat accordingly. Again what is the basis of your opinion that such behavior is widespread? Or are you just giving an opinion and nothing more than that. >Many Doctors refuse to look at the studies with regard to asthma >having more than one cause. Again with the many doctors. What are you? An epidemiologist? Have you done studies that show that many doctors believe this and or that. If not please post the studies that show what you are saying to be true. >Many Doctors refuse to even consider the use of ANY supplements, >saying all that is needed is a multi-vitamin, and supplements are >all snake oil. Again with the many doctors. Most good doctors realize that some supplements can be very helpful. For example conventional doctors recommend folic acid supplementation, calcium supplements, etc. When there is good evidence for supplements to be useful good doctors will recommend them. >Many Doctors refuse to look at research involving rheumatoid >arthritis and improvement brought on with antibiotics. Again with the many doctors. How many and how do you know this? >I'm sure I could think of more, but I'm busy right now. What is the problem? Get tired of talking out of your a.s? >> Whether asthma can be truly cured is a matter of debate. >> Sometimes [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >It's only a matter of debate among the small minded. Small minded. Perhaps I am more open minded than you. YOu seem completely convinced. I simply remain skeptical and would like to see more evidence. > Researchers >all over the globe have been saying this for years, and some >doctors are open minded enough to believe this and treat patients >that fit a certain profile. Those who need to hang on to old >theories, or to their asthma, feel this is still a matter of >debate. Please post the objective evidence that there is a cure for asthma. So tell me the cure so I won't have to take my steroid inhaler any more. >I'll have to let Jim Quinlan know he's been in remission for ten >years. I'm sure he'll get a laugh out of that. Who the f.ck is Jim Quinlan? If he is someone who had asthma and no longer has it then maybe he is just one of the many who went into spontaneous remission and it is not clear why. Of course you who are not small minded probably know with absolute certainty why he no longer has asthma. Me? I don't know the guy so I really cannot intelligently comment about him. RC I don't know the guy so I really cannot > intelligently comment about him. > > RC There seems to be a lot of things you can't intelligently comment about. >I don't know the guy so I really cannot >> intelligently comment about him. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >There seems to be a lot of things you can't intelligently comment >about. Pot, kettle, black. Thanx for snipping my comments and questions. I am impressed with how intelligently you are discussing this topic. RC You're the one with the attitude and the inappropriate language, "Dr." Carlisle. Besides, it's really clear that your mind isn't at all open about anything. I've done studies to back up part of what I posted, and I've researched the heck out of the rest of it. Would I post the studies here? No, they were done for other companies and I really don't want my company to be sued. Think what you want. The bottom line is, I don't have asthma anymore. >You're the one with the attitude and the inappropriate language, >"Dr." Carlisle. Sure glad you don't have an attitude:-) You seem confused. I never said I was a doctor. I asked if you were one and what is the basis for your opinions. You never answered. >Besides, it's really clear that your mind isn't at all open about >anything. I've done studies to back up part of what I posted, >and I've researched the heck out of the rest of it. Would I post >the studies here? No, they were done for other companies and I >really don't want my company to be sued. I see. So why should I believe some anonymous poster on usenet? NorthshoreCEO? What north shore is that? Or will revealing that open you up to a law suit? >Think what you want. The bottom line is, I don't have asthma >anymore. The bottom line is that you are an anonymous poster. I don't even know if you ever had asthma. But thanx for playing. RC >Who the f.ck is Jim Quinlan? If he is someone who had asthma and no >longer has it then maybe he is just one of the many who went into [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >RC It might be more intelligent to be less crude, wiseguy. >>Who the f.ck is Jim Quinlan? If he is someone who had asthma >>and no [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > It might be more intelligent to be less crude, wiseguy. Thank you, Bob! >It might be more intelligent to be less crude, wiseguy. Yeah, it's a pretty impoverished way to communicate, and dilutes an otherwise spirited discourse. I'm not sure why he went off the deep end. Sorry about that, CEO... > >It might be more intelligent to be less crude, wiseguy. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > deep > end. Sorry about that, CEO... Thanks, A. I really appreciate the support from you and Bob. > Who the f.ck is Jim Quinlan? You could Google him instead of swearing about it. > If he is someone who had asthma and no > longer has it then maybe he is just one of the many who went into > spontaneous remission and it is not clear why. That is quite possible. > Of course you who are > not small minded probably know with absolute certainty why he no > longer has asthma. I don't think anyone is claiming that. Small minds will dismiss both sides. > Me? I don't know the guy so I really cannot > intelligently comment about him. Obviously. Signature00doc >> Who the f.ck is Jim Quinlan? > >You could Google him instead of swearing about it. Sorry to affect your delicate sensibilities but I used the term to make my point very strongly. I mean someone suggests that I am foolish not to realize that asthma can be cured because of Jim Quinlan. I thought that my response including the word that seemed to offend you was quite reasonable under the circumstances. >> If he is someone who had asthma and no >> longer has it then maybe he is just one of the many who went into >> spontaneous remission and it is not clear why. > >That is quite possible. Thank you. Anecdotes are a dime a dozen and correlation does not imply causation. >> Of course you who are >> not small minded probably know with absolute certainty why he no >> longer has asthma. > >I don't think anyone is claiming that. We can agree to disagree. > Small minds will dismiss both sides. I agree. I have not dismissed anything. I was told that I am small-minded for not believing that there is a cure for asthma. I simply expressed skepticism and wanted more evidence before this small mind agreed with the assertion. >> Me? I don't know the guy so I really cannot >> intelligently comment about him. > >Obviously. Sorry to belabor the obvious. RC > > If there are studies showing the efficacy then conventional > > doctors [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > integrity shouldn't be questioned simply because they're more > open minded than many MD's. Hello, I agree with almost every word that you wrote. My regular doctor is not an alternative doctor. I receive a newsletter each month from an alternative doctor--his name is Dr. Julian Whitaker. I take his advice related to which supplements to take for various disorders. I wish that my medical plan allowed me to see the only alternative doctor in this town but I can't afford to use my own money to pay his high fees. I know that he not on the list of approved doctors. I also have read a book that was written by doctor that is a kidney specialist. He is not an official alternative doctor but recommended various vit., minerals that can help the kidneys to perform better. Thanks for your support. Jason SignatureNEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice. We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people. > Yes, there have been some medical studies that have proved that CoQ10 > should be prescribed along with statins. Upon request, I will provide > proof. If anyone else knows about those studies, please post. Actually, the Medical Letter (a mainstream newsletter that does not accept advertising) reviewed CoQ 10 in February and had some positive things to say about it. I've mentioned taking fish oil on this board for a number of things. [BTW - whether a statin or fish oil is better depends on the specific lipid abnormality - for most people - it is a statin]. Mainstream journals have discussed this as well (not to mention studies showing Saw Palmetto doesn't do much for the prostate and that some herbal products are hepatotoxic). What does this prove? I don't know. I think it does show that there is less of dicotomy between conventional and alternative docs than you realise. It also shows that I (and really most of the people that I have seen say so one or the other here) am not categorically against alternative treatments. However, I still think your stuff about checking urine pH is a lot of hooey that is based on pseudoscience. Signature00doc > > Yes, there have been some medical studies that have proved that CoQ10 > > should be prescribed along with statins. Upon request, I will provide [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > However, I still think your stuff about checking urine pH is a lot of hooey > that is based on pseudoscience. doc, I agree with most of what you stated. I have noticed that younger doctors seem to know more about alternative medicine than older doctors. That's great. I do think that checking urine pH is a lot of hooey for people that have no medical problems. However, I do believe that people that have certain disorders related to acid base problems (examples: some types of kidney problems and metabolic acidosis) should do it. Thanks for helping people in this newsgroup. I have seen some of your posts and have learned a lot from them. I have a friend that has asthma and have made hard copies of some of your posts and have given them to my friend. Jason SignatureNEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice. We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people. > Testing the blood pH is superior to testing the urine pH. However, it's > impractical for most people (unless we are employed in a medical lab) to > check our blood pH several times per day. It would also be useless since you would alwasy get the same number. > As you may know, doctors tell > their elderly patients to take calcium supplements each day. Yeah, but that has nothing to do with kindey function and acid. It is so that the body has the nutrients it needs to build bone. > There is a > reason for this. The kidneys of elderly people don't work as well as the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > prove that doctors know that they can alter the pH state by the use of > calcium supplements. If that book is telling you this then my advice is to burn it. > It's possible for anyone to prevent the development > of bone related diseases by keeping track of our pH levels. B.S. (Bad science) > If you choose > not to be concerned about your urine pH levels, so be it. Don't be shocked > if you end up with a bone related > disease before you die. I'm not. I won't. Signature00doc > If you want to learn more about this subject, read the book. > Jason Alternatively, eat lots of fresh fruit and vegetables, give up junk food, soft drinks, chocolate, refined sugar and caffeine, and don't waste your time testing the ph of your pee. Sorry, but applying a little bit of common sense tends to show up this acid/alkaline diet baloney for the nonsense it is. You'd be much better off digging the garden and growing some brocolli ;-) Tony >> If you want to learn more about this subject, read the book. >> Jason > > Alternatively, eat lots of fresh fruit and vegetables, > give up junk food, soft drinks, chocolate, refined sugar > and caffeine, and don't waste your time testing the ph of your pee. Kill-joy ! If I had to do all that I wouldnt want to live all that much longer. Of course, it might just seem longer so the same purpose would be achieved in the end. Signature00doc >> Alternatively, eat lots of fresh fruit and vegetables, >> give up junk food, soft drinks, chocolate, refined sugar [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > course, it might just seem longer so the same purpose would be achieved in > the end. Awww man, and what exactly do you have against broccoli? It's green, it cooks in a steamer, what more do you want? I've got fresh purple sprouting for lunch that I picked half an hour ago, absolutely gorgeous flavour, it simply doesn't get any better. You stick to your cans of fizz, crisps, burgers and deep-fried mars bars if you want to, I hope you enjoy them! Mind you I have to admit I'm partial to a slice of chocolate fudge cake now and again :-) Somehow I just can't see the attraction of weeing over litmus paper though... Tony PS if you're not from the north of England and you're wondering what the heck a deep-fried mars bar is, check this link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/4103415.stm It's all good. Yes. >>> Alternatively, eat lots of fresh fruit and vegetables, >>> give up junk food, soft drinks, chocolate, refined sugar [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > sprouting for lunch that I picked half an hour ago, absolutely gorgeous > flavour, it simply doesn't get any better. I don't have anything against broccoli - as long as it is not boiled (I grew up thinking I hated it because my mom always boiled the veggies - as an adult I learned better). It is especially good as the side dish to a steak dinner. > You stick to your cans of fizz, crisps, burgers and deep-fried mars bars > if you want to, I hope you enjoy them! I do - in moderation. I eat more fish than bugers but so still enjoy the burgers. > Somehow I just can't see the attraction of weeing over litmus paper > though... To each his own. Signature00doc >I don't have anything against broccoli - as long as it is not boiled (I grew >up thinking I hated it because my mom always boiled the veggies - as an >adult I learned better). It is especially good as the side dish to a steak >dinner. Try a little dipping sauce made with equal parts of sour cream and regular (or fancier) mustard. Mayo is good too, but if I recall you are allergic to chicken, and therefore eggs? >> You stick to your cans of fizz, crisps, burgers and deep-fried mars bars >> if you want to, I hope you enjoy them! > >I do - in moderation. I eat more fish than bugers but so still enjoy the >burgers. Aren't you a little old to still be eating your bugers? ;) > Try a little dipping sauce made with equal parts of sour cream and > regular (or fancier) mustard. Mayo is good too, but if I recall you > are allergic to chicken, and therefore eggs? One of my favourites: purple sprouting broccoli, young carrots, one small sliced onion, couple of small new potatoes, 1 fillet of freshly caught lemon sole or an undyed smoked manx-style kipper from fishmongers. Pick all the veg from garden and wash, then steam for about 10 minutes or till lightly done while grilling the fish (dab of butter). Add a few radishes, chives, and a little water cress cress on the side. Tony >> Try a little dipping sauce made with equal parts of sour cream and >> regular (or fancier) mustard. Mayo is good too, but if I recall you [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Tony ok Tony, you just rang my dinner bell. Thanks. >>I don't have anything against broccoli - as long as it is not boiled (I >>grew [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > regular (or fancier) mustard. Mayo is good too, but if I recall you > are allergic to chicken, and therefore eggs? Chicken but not eggs. >>> You stick to your cans of fizz, crisps, burgers and deep-fried mars bars >>> if you want to, I hope you enjoy them! [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Aren't you a little old to still be eating your bugers? ;) Hey, I said I eat more fish. Besides, that would be spelled boogers. Signature00doc >>>I don't have anything against broccoli - as long as it is not boiled (I >>>grew [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Chicken but not eggs. Interesting--I'm allergic to chicken, but not eggs as well. Any idea how common this is? >>>>I don't have anything against broccoli - as long as it is not boiled (I >>>>grew [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Interesting--I'm allergic to chicken, but not eggs as well. Any idea how > common this is? Well - keeping in mind that I do spend a good part of each day asking people what they are allergic to - I have met one other person and heard of two others. I have looked for stats a little bit but have never found any - but I haven't put a lot of effort into it. Signature00doc > I don't have anything against broccoli - as long as it is not boiled (I grew > up thinking I hated it because my mom always boiled the veggies - as an > adult I learned better). It is especially good as the side dish to a steak > dinner. You can now combine both culinary delights by flying to la belle France to visit "Le Chipper" restaurant en Paris and ordering "chocolat au batteur avec vegetables fines" - that's deep fried mars bar with a side dish of vegetables. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/654750.stm They also do chocolate filled ravioli and chicken served in Seven-Up. A slight word of caution though:- Marie-Ange Renaud, from Le Petit Bonheur, a traditional restaurant next to Le Chipper, said: "I tried one of their deep-fried Mars Bars and found it disgusting". Tony |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message