As people age, they typically become less able to excrete this acid, leading to an acidic buildup. The body responds by breaking down bone—a process called resorption—to release minerals such as calcium and phosphates along with alkaline salts. This loses calcium through excretion and weakens the bones, increasing fracture risk.
I wonder if that's really true, (that bone resorption is due to a build up of acid in the body), or of it's just another medical community assumption. Where does the body store all this alleged acid? If we become so acidic, why isn't it more obvious? If our pH were significantly below a normal level, we would slowly rot our clothes. Most of those billions of skin bacteria and mites that we carry around would no longer be able to survive on our skin, because bacteria are very sensitive to pH.
I tend to believe that the primary reason why we suffer bone resorption as we age, is because as a group, (IOW, in general), we aren't as active, and we don't get as much load-bearing exercise. The old cliché that says
Use it or lose it, is right on target.
That said, I certainly am not advocating the consumption of grains, because I really don't believe that grains are good choices for anyone, unless there are no other choices available. When the chips are down, grains beat the heck out of nothing, as our neolithic ancestors discovered, when they began running out of wild animals to eat.
I have a real problem, however, believing that protein is bad for us. While we're omnivores, the archaeological evidence shows that historically, we have always leaned pretty far toward the carnivore category, until the neolithic period came along and our overall health as a species began the downward trend that continues to this day.
People who do research studies these days almost always have an agenda, and in order to prove the validity of the goals that are set by their agenda, by means of acceptable "scientific" methods, they make certain assumptions up front, that virtually guarantee that they will get the outcome they are seeking. IOW, in this case, cereal grains are so detrimental to health that they can override many of the benefits of the protein content of meat, so by combining protein and cereal grains, they can claim that a study shows that protein is bad for us, because a certain combination with other foods is bad.
I saw a study a few days ago that claimed that their research proved that fat and excess carbs were detrimental to some aspect of health (I don't even remember what it was they set out to prove), but the point is, why would they lump fat and carbs together? They have entirely different metabolic characteristics, so they should be studied separately. Now we all know that fat is not the evil enemy that most "food experts" claim it is, but a huge segment of the general population still isn't aware of that fact, so researchers continue to promote their agendas by preaching half-truths in order to take advantage of public ignorance.
Sorry, I seem to have gotten side-tracked.
Tex
