Blood pH and diet

Blood pH is relatively constant at around 7.4 because the body will strip calcium from bones, if necessary, to buffer it in the absence of alkaline-forming food components. That is not homeostasis. But blood pH does vary (typically within a range of 6.8 to 7.8, with potentially lethal effects beyond that range) and affects urine pH, which we can easily measure. 

Dietary compounds formed in the body affect blood pH; not the contrasting pH levels in the digestive tract (acid in the stomach and neutral in the small intestine) or the apparent acidity of foods, but what happens after digestion. The minerals or weak acids (citrates, et al) in alkaline-forming foods are used to make alkaline compounds in the body, which won't happen efficiently with a processed food or a non-plant-derived diet. Scientists have measured this effect and doctors have utilized it in practice, so it's not theoretical or based on pH limited to areas of the digestive tract. https://www.drrusselljaffe.com/7-principles-eating-alkaline-way/ 

"An advanced understanding of acid–base physiology is as central to the practice of critical care medicine, as are an understanding of cardiac and pulmonary physiology. Intensivists spend much of their time managing problems related to fluids, electrolytes, and blood pH. Recent advances in the understanding of acid–base physiology have occurred as the result of the application of basic physical-chemical principles of aqueous solutions to blood plasma. This analysis has revealed three independent variables that regulate pH in blood plasma. These variables are carbon dioxide, relative electrolyte concentrations, and total weak acid concentrations. All changes in blood pH, in health and in disease, occur through changes in these three variables. Clinical implications for these findings are also discussed." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC137247/ 

Aluminum in chlorella and other foods

Aluminum is one of the most abundant elements on earth and is correspondingly present in both food and water supplies. It is not a toxic heavy metal and so it is not routinely tested in foods or other raw materials, but the reported levels in chlorella are still low compared to common produce and other food staples; and chlorella’s serving size is also much smaller, which minimizes any potential risk even more.  

 

Aluminum in foods is not a cause for concern for toxicology experts because orally consumed aluminum is not considered to be very bioavailable from the gut, nor persistent in the body. Less than 1% is typically absorbed from our G.I. tracts, and virtually all of that has been shown to be excreted in the urine or feces. (Injectable sources, such as vaccine adjuvants, present a separate issue as absorption is not constrained by an effective gut barrier.)

 

Some companies tout lower levels of aluminum in their chlorella products as a marketing distinction, but admit that the levels being compared are far lower than in most common foods that are considered very healthy, i.e. cruciferous vegetables; despite the overwhelming safety data showing no real risk from consuming these foods that are normally considered to be good for us.

 

Here is a toxicology evaluation of dietary aluminum safety: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11259180

Supplements vs. Food to Obtain Key Nutrients

Supplements vs Food [Infographic] by the team at Supplement Centre

ADULT WEIGHT MANAGEMENT interview, Vitamin Retailer magazine, February, 2011

Weight management products have long been an important category for natural product retailers, partially because it is such a problem for many people to control their weight but also since many people shop in these stores because they want to use natural products that are free of potentially risky pharmaceuticals. As a gateway category for transitional shoppers that may be new to health food stores, weight management products become an important gauge of a commitment to meeting these people’s needs and thus keeping them as customers willing to try other products. Of course, nutritionists will suggest a comprehensive diet and supplement plan, rather than relying on “magic bullet” single products.

Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) regulations have gone into effect over the past several years, raising the bar on manufacturers’ quality control practices. At the same time, mandatory Adverse Event Reporting (AER) was also implemented. Both of these regulatory mechanisms should increase consumer confidence and belie the myth that the industry is “unregulated”.

I believe that the glut of stories about Americans being overweight tends to make people more aware of their own lack of exercise and dietary restraint, which contribute to their excess weight. Of course, health scares and medical crises also alert people to their mortality and tend to motivate healthy dietary and other lifestyle changes. Today’s youth-obsessed media makes people want to look young and fit even past middle age. Plastic surgery, being expensive and with some risks, is far from a perfect solution. There are no shortcuts to health, only natural aids to good health. The very visible failures of both diet drugs and illegal products pretending to be dietary supplements illustrate the depth of the market and the need for effective natural weight management products.

Consumers tend to look for something that was recommended to them, either by a person or an authority. The person could be a family member, co-worker, or an acquaintance. The authority could be someone cited in the media, on the Internet, or a trusted trainer or health professional. Top categories are controlling appetite (satiety), increasing metabolism (thermogenics), and blocking the absorption of certain food components such as carbohydrates or fats (nutrient blockers).

Natural foods and fibers are part of the solution to maintaining healthy weight and blood sugar. These foods would include whole grains as well as fibers from various sources. Some of these fibers are gluten-free and/or organic, such as Flax, Acacia, Inulin, and Psyllium. Fibers also help satiety, the feeling of being full.

Consumers today are more concerned about the quality and safety of diet support products, so are looking for assurances of adequate quality controls and testing. Some parts of this process include method validation and development, stability testing, identity testing, microbiological testing, heavy metal testing, specification development, overseeing production, procuring samples and preparing them for testing, and even raw material vendor audits.

Gluten issues, allergies vs sensitivities vs digestive issues

All grains contain gluten; some forms are just more allergenic or more difficult to process than others, which can vary from individual to individual. Wheat is the most common gluten reaction; which is also possible for rye, oats, barley and buckwheat. Some people are sensitive to certain proteins because of leaky gut, a condition where digestion is impaired because of GI tract disorders. Non-allergenic "delayed sensitivity reactions" to proteins may be caused by leaky gut and the specific immune cells reacting to these specific proteins can be reprogrammed to be non-reactive to them by completely avoiding these specific foods for at least 6 weeks. Not so for true food allergies, which can be permanent and trigger ever-increasing reactions with every occasional exposure. People's abilities to digest proteins vary with genetics, immune system capacity and probiotics present in the gut. There is even current research on specific bacteria that prevent the damage caused by wheat in susceptible people's guts. Only about 1% of the population tests as truly allergic to wheat protein, between 1-2% for dairy protein. Obviously, many more are (temporarily) sensitive to these proteins based on gut dysbiosis and leaky gut tissues failing to completely digest these foods. The issue of lactose intolerance is another possible cause of gas or bloating after consuming non-fermented dairy products (except for low-lactose products like whey protein isolate). The use of antacids is a major factor reducing digestion of proteins and minerals in the stomach, as well as reducing the essential acidic barrier against pathogenic organisms that may be present in our food and water; even from dirty hands that we use to eat. Stress and improper chewing may also contribute to the presence of extra undigested proteins in the gut, composed of undigested food and undesirable microbes. Who's left to clean up the mess and try to get some badly needed nutrients into the bloodstream? The immune system, though imperfectly. A major part of immune cell counts and activity is in the GI tract for exactly this reason, consuming a lot of energy. If digestion fails and the GI tract contains an unhealthy mixture of organisms and large protein masses, the result is a significant immune challenge by every measure, leading to inflammation and fatigue. Glutamine is an amino acid present in most protein-containing foods that is essential to brain and nerve function. Magnesium, other amino acids (ie taurine) and antioxidant co-factors render it far less overexciting to neurons. MSG and aspartame are additional proteins that can cause nerve overstimulus in some circumstances. There are ways to reduce these reactions, as described thoroughly by Dr. Russell Blailock in his books, lectures and articles. The bottom line: No need for most people to avoid soy, milk or grains if they can maintain the intregrity of their digestive and GI tracts properly. Most of those whose systems aren't in such good health can utilize fairly effective means of correcting these issues and eventually resuming the use of these foods in their diets, unless they are the relatively few with true allergies.

Myths about stearate "risks"

There are some common myths about stearates. Please allow me to describe the stearates that are utilized in making nutritional supplements, and how they are used, and other pertinent information on their safety and use in dietary supplements and foods.

Stearic acid is converted into oleic acid in vivo, so becomes a similar fat as is found in olive oil. In fact, one jumbo olive is estimated to contain 13 milligrams (.013 g) of stearic acid (C 18:0), many times more than is used in any pills or capsules. http://www.oliveoilsource.com/olivechemistry.htm

“Stearic acid is well absorbed by the gut and is transported in chylomicrons and remnant particles before being picked up by the liver. Once there, an interesting paradox occurs in that excess stearic acid is simply converted to the 18-carbon monounsaturated oleic acid via a desaturase enzyme in the liver (3) and then recirculates in lipoprotein complexes as oleic acid, which is not hypercholesterolemic. Thus, conversion to oleic acid may explain why stearic acid does not elevate plasma cholesterol concentrations.”

Supplement manufacturers rarely use more than 2% and usually far less or none at all, even though common foods contain much more (beef fat is 19% stearates; cocoa butter is 30%) and stearates are Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS). It is unusual that they would use more than1-2% in a product, and when they do use them it is typically used in microgram amounts to help process only sticky or non-flowing materials.

The hydrogenation process is not used for the stearic acid in the magnesium stearate. It is possible to convert oleic acid to stearic acid by hydrogenation, but that is not necessary (or desirable) with sources that are already high in stearic acid and low in oleic acid. Lipase-catalyzed interesterification is a viable alternative to hydrogenation these days, for example, if one were to want to convert oleic acid to stearic acid.

No consumer should be inhaling stearates, so the issue of being hazardous is also a bogus one that should be relegated to producers and manufacturers. You can actually say far worse about the hazards of inhaled enzymes, for example. Most supplement materials have MSDS handling sheets that mention the dangers of inhalation. There are no known significant dangers from normal oral consumption or skin contact.

The reason dietary stearic acid is considered benign is based on its failure to elevate plasma cholesterol concentrations (1, 2). Foods naturally rich in stearic acid and other saturated fats include: Red meat (beef, pork, or lamb) High-fat dairy products (whole milk, cheese, butter, and ice cream) Chocolate, Lard, Coconut oil.

For more on stearates, please see: http://www.nowfoods.com/index.php?action=itemdetail&item_id=93528.

Also, the accompanying chart has the percentages of stearic acid in common foods (4). As you can see, stearic acid is far more abundant in olive oil, butter and lard than in dietary supplements as a percentage, with grams in foods and micrograms (possible low milligram levels) in only certain dietary supplements:

A common reference is to a 1990 study in the journal Immunology, but the reference is hardly satisfactory as a demonstration of the alleged harm of stearic acid. This was a test tube study that has not been replicated in living beings, with an artificial situation providing high concentrations of stearic acid exposed to isolated immune cells for hours at a time. It was actually done as a way to investigate whether prolonged high dose stearic acid administration could possibly be used to suppress the immune system for an autoimmune disease treatment. (5) It was definitely NOT a demonstration that this would work the same way with dietary supplements or with foods containing stearic acid. The effect was dose- and time- dependent; with a sustained, prolonged exposure over an 8-hour period that is impossible to replicate in the living human body. For a test tube study, it would first have to be shown that the mechanism was valid in vivo before it could be considered reasonable to extrapolate it to actual living organsms. This study did not do that; nor has any other, to date.

In conclusion, since this mechanism has not been proven in humans or had additional verifying studies, since humans have much more complex metabolic activities, since stearic acid is easily absorbed from the gut and then readily converted to oleic acid in the liver (in vivo), since manufacturers use far less than this study gave and with only a brief exposure, and since people get stearic acid in many common oil-containing foods in far greater amounts than are used in dietary supplements, I conclude that the fears about the use of stearates in dietary supplements are unproven and speculative at best, slanderous and unscientific at worst.

For a second opinion, please see the website of Ray Sahelian, M.D. at http://www.raysahelian.com/magnesiumstearate.html

REFERENCES
1. Yu S, Derr J, Etherton TD, Kris-Etherton PM. Plasma cholesterolpredictive equations demonstrate that stearic acid is neutral and monounsaturated fatty acids are hypocholesterolemic. Am J Clin Nutr 1995;61:1129–39.
2. Aro A, Jauhiainen M, Partanen R, Salminen I, Mutanen M. Stearic acid, trans fatty acids, and dairy fat: effects on serum and lipoprotein lipids, apolipoproteins, lipoprotein(a), and lipid transfer proteins in healthy subjects. Am J Clin Nutr 1997;65:1419–26.
3. Lin DS, Connor WE, Spenler CW. Are dietary saturated, monounsaturated, and polyunsaturated fatty acids deposited to the same extent in adipose tissue of rabbits? Am J Clin Nutr 1993;58:174–9.
4. http://www.nebeef.org/post/lfu/Stearic_Acid.pdf
5. Tebby PW, Buttke TM. Molecular Basis for the Immunosuppresive Action of stearic acid on T Cells. Immunology. 1990;70:379-384.

My second letter to Reader's Digest about vitamins

Subject: Re: Vitamin Hoax Thank you for your reply. But your statement that "supplements are unregulated" is completely untrue, and is contradicted by the FDA itself on its own official Web page [“FDA regulates dietary supplements under a different set of regulations than those covering "conventional" foods and drug products (prescription and Over-the-Counter).”]. Are your experts completely unfamiliar with the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act prohibiting new dietary ingredients without FDA pre-approval and regulating adulterated products and label claims, the Serious Adverse Event reporting act passed last year, the mandatory federal current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP) that are now being implemented requiring quality controls and identity testing of ingredients, and currently operational GMP-audited manufacturers? That inflammatory falsehood is exactly the kind of media myth that evidences bias or abject misunderstanding. You have represented a misguided opinion as fact, when it is clearly contradicted by official records of the FDA, FTC and the Congressional Record in both law and regulations. As a watchdog for clinical studies that are misrepresented or poorly done, it is obvious to me that your writers cherry-picked negative studies that were heavily criticized, some contradicted by more robust data or not able to be replicated, and some done with very sick people where the results were admittedly not applicable to healthy populations. Many scientists simply fail to understand the topic of nutrition, thinking that nutrients should be taken just like drugs: in isolation and in high potencies to treat disease in their studies. That is pharmaceutical medicine, not basic human nutrition, which is an all-too-common mistake that creates a lot of confusion when applied to the moderate dietary supplements used by ordinary people to enhance their vitamin-starved modern diets. Using examples of potential side effects from taking amounts far above commonly available supplement potencies as the main reason to avoid taking them entirely is intellectually dishonest, in my opinion, when no one was actually suggesting that everyone take those mega dose amounts in the first place. When you say that, “Food (especially locally farmed food) is the only way to get your vitamins that's absolutely proven to be safe and effective”, you are only partially right. I am a nominee to the Illinois Local and Organic Food Task Force, on a slate approved by the state Department of Agriculture, so I do understand your point and empathize. But you forget the tens of thousands of people affected annually by food poisoning. This makes vitamins orders of magnitude safer than food, especially fresh foods, and are thus more deserving of your praise for safety and efficacy. You also seem to forget that vitamins are regulated as a special, highly regulated food category by the federal government (by law), and not as drugs. If it is so 'easy' to "get what you need from food" then why does your own report admit that only 3% of us get the minimal nutrient levels from our diet? That really disproves this tired old mantra, doesn't it? It is pure institutional bias that prevents the NIH from recommending multiple vitamins, when even the mainstream medical journal JAMA has done so years ago. If you remember (I do), it took the federal government 20+ years to endorse the use of folic acid to fortify foods denatured of that essential vitamin, during which entire time the evidence was already strong that it could prevent birth defects; with a request in to the Nixon administration that it was time to take action. The March of Dimes recommended this fortification long before the government finally caved in (during the Clinton administration!), but meanwhile thousands of children were born each year with potentially preventable and predictable birth defects while waiting for the perpetually elusive 'more conclusive evidence'. But there never seems to be enough evidence when we're talking about dietary supplements. Even a multiple vitamin taken by the mothers should have been enough to spare these children, but the government still to this day won't fully act to protect people's health by recommending that the 97% of us not eating even minimally right take a simple and safe daily multivitamin, as many doctors already recommend. Are we so set on forcing people to eat right, when they clearly won't, that we should all just pretend that taking a multivitamin as nutritional 'insurance' is somehow fundamentally wrong? In good conscience, I can't do that. I know better. And so do most Americans, who have opted to take vitamins and do so without much risk. Perhaps you haven’t noticed the reports that our food supply has dramatically dropped in nutritional value over the past half century due to factors such as chemical farming, less nutritious plant varieties, changes in storage and handling, etc? The nutritional content of U.S. fruits and vegetables has declined over the past 50 years, according to a researcher at the University of Texas. Cited in an article by Scripps Howard News Service, biochemist Donald Davis said that of 13 major nutrients in fruits and vegetables tracked by the Agriculture Department from 1950 to 1999, six (protein, calcium, phosphorus, iron, riboflavin and vitamin C) all showed noticeable declines. Declines ranged from 6% for protein, 20% for vitamin C, and 38% for riboflavin. [February 2006, official meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in St. Louis, MO] Data from the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) showed that, between 1940 and 1991, trace minerals in UK fruits and vegetables fell by up to 76 per cent, and United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) figures showed similar declines. [McCance and Widdowson 1940–1991, The Composition of Foods, 1st to 5th editions, published by MAFF/RSC] [Mayer AM, 1997, ‘Historical changes in the mineral content of fruits and vegetables’, in Lockeretz W (ed.), Agricultural Production and Nutrition, Tufts University School of Nutrition Science and Policy, Boston, MA, p 69–77. See also British Food Journal 99(6), p207–211] [Bergner P, 1997, The Healing Power of Minerals, Special Nutrients and Trace Elements, Prima Publishing, Rocklin, CA, p 312] Neil E. Levin, CCN, DANLA www.honestnutrition.com

Clone Wars!

I sent this letter to the editor to several newspapers yesterday: Dear Editor, The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently announced approval of meat and dairy products from cloned animals, despite widespread concern among scientists and food safety advocates.Recent polls show that, though most Americans do not want food from cloned animals, cloned milk and meat may soon be sold without labels. But there is much more to the debate than just the nutrient profile of cloned meat and milk, which the FDA seems to have focused on to the exclusion of other issues. Some scientists argue that clones may be inherently unhealthy, with potentially harmful consequences for foods derived from clones. Altered gene expression is common in clones and the process typically results in defective aborted fetuses and birth defects. The first cloned mammal was the sheep "Dolly". Just six years old when euthanized (expected to live until eleven), Dolly suffered from arthritis and lung disease usually found in much older animals. The lead scientist responsible for "creating"Dolly warned that even small imbalances in a clone's hormone, protein or fat levels could compromise the safety of its milk or meat, and some farmers do inject synthetic growth hormones in dairy cows. The FDA has ignored valid scientific and ethical concerns to fast-track a decision for the benefit of biotech companies, without significant public input. Please let our representatives in Washington know that food from cloned animals should be banned. At least label cloned food so we may freely choose whether to eat or avoid it. Neil E. Levin Clinical Nutritionist