Blood pH

badgerbadger1

The issue with "body pH" that is touted by some alternative medicine folk, and I do believe "alternative medicine" isn't that pie-in-the-sky in many respects, is that "body pH" could mean anything...urine, skin, blood. Urine & skin pH have huge ranges compared with blood pH. I studied metabolic acidosis in-depth when my daughter kept getting it as a preschooler. Most of the posters are dead-on, the body compensates with blood pH. I was taught in nursing school that the body cannot much survive outside of 7.35-7.45. I have seen one paint huffer show up with a blood pH of 6.3. The MD in his 20 yrs of practice had never seen a pH so acidic alive (and the pt wasn't far from dead) & ordered repeat tests two times. I don't know what became of this man, he had the most unbelievable labs you'd ever see.

You can develop metabolic acidosis when certain aspects of the kreb's cycle are ineffective. In addition, read up on the 4 complexes of mitochondrial disorder, which is within the kreb's cycle. For example, many patients with mito disorders will have elevated lactic acid in their blood, or elevated pyruvate in their blood, yet their pH be relatively normal because the respiratory system is trying to make up for it. Urine organic acids are often used to discover markers for metabolic/mitochondrial problems.

My long-winded, not-much-scientific response is to simply say, notice in these infomercials the term "body pH" being used instead of specifying blood pH. "Body pH" makes it vague and more difficult to rationally discuss, which I believe is the purpose.

The body can survive outside of the 7.35 to 7.45, that's just the healthy range. pH of 7.0 is incompatible with life however.
It's quite common to see COPDers walking around day to day with CO2 levels in the 80s and partially compensated or fully compensated blood gases. I see septic patients with pHs in the high 6's fairly frequently, obviously they're pretty ill though.

My guess is that huffer would have either been dialysed and/or intubated to bring his blood pH back on line, however it's probably only a matter of time until he killed himself with his habit..

badgerbadger1

I understand all the biochemical basis for this theory because I've trained in it and I work with people who have severe acid base imbalances daily, in the real world, in life and death situations. It's my job to maintain or improve that balance in real time with CRRT, ventilator manipulation, sedation, and titrating IV infusions, internal warming and cooling methods.

The fact of the matter is, yes theoretically you can affect the acid base balance by what you eat, minimally. However, unless you are going to down an entire bottle of Tums (or two) or other intentionally caustic substances, or otherwise have comorbidities you will not disrupt the system. We're built to handle minimal disruptions, such as larger swings produced by heavy exertional activity. Comparatively speaking running at top speed for 5 mins will tax your system more than 15 meals could. Yet we recover within minutes. Your body is perfectly capable of managing a slower rise in alkalosis or acidosis produced by food. Managing these fluctuations is normal physiological activity, much like regulating body temperature.

I must strongly disagree with the notion that eating acidic or alkaline foods taxes your bones and muscles and leads to disease. I'd like to see some recent meta-analysis supporting this hypothesis. My practice is heavily reliant on empirical evidence, and I've seen nothing of any value to support this.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18940881

"CONCLUSIONS:

Bicarbonate, but not potassium, had a favorable effect on bone resorption and calcium excretion. This suggests that increasing the alkali content of the diet may attenuate bone loss in healthy older adults."

Notice that bicarbonate is a negative ion, potassium is not, it has a neutral charge.

That's a single study, not a meta analysis nor several studies.
It denotes a positive effect, which does not mean the opposite produces a negative effect. That would require a separate study. You cannot conclude from this study that acidic foods cause disease.
This has little relevance to the topic of blood pH.