Talk:Alkaline diet/Archive1

Achilles
The uneducated person who wrote about Ionizers, slandered all the actual scientific abstacts out there on the subject. Whoever wrote the preceding paragraphs on Continuous Ionized Electrolysis water generator systems needs to do some serious research into Electrolyzed Reduced Water; It is a pure hate bash attempt against MLM and cites no actual tangible knowledge in the area; Just a simple one sided opinion from a internet troll. Scholarly Peer reviewed studies are a good thing, when in doubt, trust actual cited abstacts from people in the respective fields of science, the amount of misinformation out there on Ionizers and the pure fascist hate for the main company being a MLM is just ridiculous.

http://www.molecularhydrogenfoundation.org/studies/

https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=electrolyzed+reduced+water&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiGofa34bfKAhVU6mMKHZ08CggQgQMIHjAA

Btw, I sell Kangen machines via Door to Door sales, your pyramid scheme bullshit is complete non-sense; I make my own money with my own blood, sweat and 'tears' and help out people at the same time, enjoy your 9-5 squares.

Tata! Achilles911 (talk) 06:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)Achilles911
 * Do you have any specific studies to look at? 02:51, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I believe you will find these ones to be of significant value; however, as mentioned, the molecular hydrogen foundation hosts the links to over 500+ studies, so if you have any specific requests on certain areas, I would look there on their study section; It is incredibly simple to navigate.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/25747486/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/17159237/ https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222884352_Recent_progress_in_alkaline_water_electrolysis_for_hydrogen_production_and_applications_Prog_Energy_Combustion_Sci http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/24769081/

All these studies and more are originally sources by myself as mentioned again from http://www.molecularhydrogenfoundation.org/studies/, Feel free to browse yourself at your own leisure. Achilles911 (talk) 06:17, 23 January 2016 (UTC)Achilles911

How it works, from BoN
Had to copy this from an edit a BoN made to the article itself, because it's quite amusing: While the above information regarding the pH of human blood is valid, the information regarding the concept behind the diet is misunderstood. Proponents of the diet acknowledge that the pH of the blood cannot vary much without resulting in coma or death, but the bodies mechanisms of neutralizing acidic foods will leave the body depleted of the highly alkaline minerals such as Potassium, Magnesium, Calcium, and Sodium. As a result, the body will break down bones to obtain calcium, and steal magnesium from the eyes, resulting in a degeneration of the body over time. The "Net" acidity of the food is in fact what matters, meaning whether it has enough vitamin and mineral content to neutralize its own acids when it is broken down by the body. So wait, it's not that the pH of the blood is changing, it's that eating "acidic" foods breaks down your bones and makes your eyes melt? I'm sure someone here with far better biochemistry credentials could answer this instead of me but in the meantime I'd invite the BoN to provide links to journals describing the above more verbosely for us to review. Crundy Talk nerdy to me 08:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added a couple of paragraphs addressing the above, complete with a meta study that shows it's bollocks. Crundy Talk nerdy to me 10:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * A professor of mine went on to say that eating acidic foods like fruits reduces the body's ability to cope with cold. Like, that people in cold climates eat less acidic foods and people in warm climates eat more. I have no idea where he got this idea but it sounded like somebody or something convinced him of it, because he's terrible at just making things up on the spot: the last time he tried it was about stem cells and half-duck-half-human abominations. He sounded more confident of the diet woo so he must have been getting it somewhere. There may be more woo relating to acidic/alkaline diet that the article doesn't talk about...anybody know of it?±[[File:knightoftldrsig.png]]KnightOfTL;DR more at 11 13:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * o_0 A professor of what? - David Gerard (talk) 16:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Biology, unfortunately. Molecular biology. He has some kind of bizarre doublethink going on where he can go on to teach us the structure of atoms and molecules and then proclaim that water somehow is changed in structure as an active ingredient in homeopathy. I have recorded some of his strange antics here. ±[[File:knightoftldrsig.png]]KnightOfTL;DR yeah, well you fight like a cow! 16:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Re: "There may be more woo...": pH woo is really old. See for example wp:John Colbatch (apothecary).--ZooGuard (talk) 16:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Re: I had a biochemestry teacher like yours. I think that many infructuous experiments in the lab tend to give some magical powers to water, as in fact, the researcher can think that he hasn't changed anything but water. I also remember a neurobiology professor that couldn't make his experiments work using water from another lab, although he purified the water exactly as the one from his lab. So my conclusion was that water purification in our college wasn't the best for some experiments. ( I'm very new here so would like to start just commenting here, please tell me if I do wrong)--Freexky (talk) 10:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I see banner ads for this diet saying "lose weight with these 3 weird tips" The "weird tips" are products (I think not dvds)--67.180.16.83 (talk) 05:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

What's with the Vitamin D coming from dairy products line? They are fortified to achieve this, why make special mention of dairy over other fortified foods or supplements?

"The Nugget of Fact"
I'm doubtful about this whole section under the heading "The Nugget of Fact" (?), and about whether it should be removed. Aside from the many issues with spelling/grammar/tone, I'm not sure whether these particular studies cited (9 to 20 in the reference list) are representative of the prevailing science (maybe someone else in the know can comment on this). A few months ago I left a message about it on the talk page of the user who added this section and he/she has not responded. --Yisfidri (talk) 11:39, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Looked cranky as hell, so I removed it. Thanks for bringing this up. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Quack Miranda Warning
This section here says the warning is there for legal protection, but the main article says it provides none. Which one is it? 02:54, 28 July 2018 (UTC)