Why You Shouldn't Listen to a Physician Giving Nutritional Advice.
File under "Pet Peeve".
Physicians are some of the worst people to give nutritional advice . Since they are MD's, society lauds them as "experts" on anything having to do with health, yet most of them have only a cursory knowledge of nutrition and very little experience in the scientific method and the skills required to critique studies. Further, their social status often prevents them from self-critiquing their own knowledge.
IME, from reading nutritional advice on the web, Physicians are 2nd only to new age hippies in their lack of understanding in basic biochemical processes.
Today, I read an article on the evils of cola. The author is actually a DC and not an MD, but his Blog is Dr. Axe. You can read it here. No professional researcher would ever make such a sweeping claim such as
"All diseases (including cancer) thrive in an acidic environment. He includes two studies that supposedly argue this point, except the 1st one actually says unequivocally that an acid environment *kills* this cancer cell line. The other article has nothing to do with acid environments at all and all studies were performed on plasma, meaning pH=7.5. The irritating thing is that these blogs are viral and the same crappy science gets proliferated all over the web, and the average person hasn't been properly schooled to question such claims and rely on these so called "authorities." It's very aggravating!
Here's my response to his blog:
hey Dr Axe,
I downloaded those studies you mentioned above and I have to say you couldn’t have picked worse studies to try to argue your point.
The title of the 1st study, which is strangely missing from your citation is “Acid Environment causes Apoptosis by increasing Caspase Activity”, which in plain terms says an acid environment causes this line of cancer cell to die, which is the exact opposite of what you are trying to argue.
The intent of the researchers is to determine the mechanism by which altering the environment inside a tumor by lowering the pH may increase the efficacy of chemotherapy. In fact, the authors state
“It has been demonstrated that intracellular acidification by exposing cells to an acid environment or by interfering with intracellular pH control mechanisms causes cellular damage and sensitizes cells to chemotherapy or hyperthermia.”
Throughout the paper the authors present data that says lowering the pH kills this line of cancer cell with pH =6.4 killing 41% of the cancer cells vs 13.2% @pH=7.5 (6hr incubation).
The 2nd paper has absolutely nothing to do with an acidic environment and not once in the review is pH mentioned. It is a review of literature of Uric acid (cf purine metabolism) as a marker or possible risk factor in some diseases.
To say Uric acid unequivocally creates an acidic environment is like saying α-linolenic acid, ascorbic acid, citric acid, amino acids, oxalic acid, create an acidic environment simply b/c they have acid in their name. In reality, the review was about plasma Uric acid meaning pH=7.5. (not acidic)
High levels of uric acid are mostly linked to heredity, poor kidney function and diet high in purines. Foods that are high in purines include a number of “alkaline foods” like asparagus, cauliflower, spinach, as well as beans & meat.
The irony is that coke is not on this list.
The authors are very careful in differentiating between “correlation” and “causation” and state quite explicitly that Uric acid is a definite marker for a number of conditions, but it’s role as a risk factor has not been established. It is the difference between a symptom of a disease and a cause of a disease.
Just Keeping it Real,
John V.
but I doubt he will approve it, as these types of blogs are more about being commercial enterprises than providing factual information. It would be better for his blog if he ran around with researchers at John Hopkins University or Harvard School of Public Health rather than Olympic Hopefuls.
Now, I don't claim to be an "expert", but I do know how to ask the right questions and look for the information in peer-reviewed scientific journals. I also know how to compile the information of several studies to give a fairly educated estimate on realistic conclusions that can be made.
I would love to start a blog that not simply told people "facts" but rather taught readers how to ask the right questions concerning information and studies presented to them.
jv
Physicians are some of the worst people to give nutritional advice . Since they are MD's, society lauds them as "experts" on anything having to do with health, yet most of them have only a cursory knowledge of nutrition and very little experience in the scientific method and the skills required to critique studies. Further, their social status often prevents them from self-critiquing their own knowledge.
IME, from reading nutritional advice on the web, Physicians are 2nd only to new age hippies in their lack of understanding in basic biochemical processes.
Today, I read an article on the evils of cola. The author is actually a DC and not an MD, but his Blog is Dr. Axe. You can read it here. No professional researcher would ever make such a sweeping claim such as
"All diseases (including cancer) thrive in an acidic environment. He includes two studies that supposedly argue this point, except the 1st one actually says unequivocally that an acid environment *kills* this cancer cell line. The other article has nothing to do with acid environments at all and all studies were performed on plasma, meaning pH=7.5. The irritating thing is that these blogs are viral and the same crappy science gets proliferated all over the web, and the average person hasn't been properly schooled to question such claims and rely on these so called "authorities." It's very aggravating!
Here's my response to his blog:
hey Dr Axe,
I downloaded those studies you mentioned above and I have to say you couldn’t have picked worse studies to try to argue your point.
The title of the 1st study, which is strangely missing from your citation is “Acid Environment causes Apoptosis by increasing Caspase Activity”, which in plain terms says an acid environment causes this line of cancer cell to die, which is the exact opposite of what you are trying to argue.
The intent of the researchers is to determine the mechanism by which altering the environment inside a tumor by lowering the pH may increase the efficacy of chemotherapy. In fact, the authors state
“It has been demonstrated that intracellular acidification by exposing cells to an acid environment or by interfering with intracellular pH control mechanisms causes cellular damage and sensitizes cells to chemotherapy or hyperthermia.”
Throughout the paper the authors present data that says lowering the pH kills this line of cancer cell with pH =6.4 killing 41% of the cancer cells vs 13.2% @pH=7.5 (6hr incubation).
The 2nd paper has absolutely nothing to do with an acidic environment and not once in the review is pH mentioned. It is a review of literature of Uric acid (cf purine metabolism) as a marker or possible risk factor in some diseases.
To say Uric acid unequivocally creates an acidic environment is like saying α-linolenic acid, ascorbic acid, citric acid, amino acids, oxalic acid, create an acidic environment simply b/c they have acid in their name. In reality, the review was about plasma Uric acid meaning pH=7.5. (not acidic)
High levels of uric acid are mostly linked to heredity, poor kidney function and diet high in purines. Foods that are high in purines include a number of “alkaline foods” like asparagus, cauliflower, spinach, as well as beans & meat.
The irony is that coke is not on this list.
The authors are very careful in differentiating between “correlation” and “causation” and state quite explicitly that Uric acid is a definite marker for a number of conditions, but it’s role as a risk factor has not been established. It is the difference between a symptom of a disease and a cause of a disease.
Just Keeping it Real,
John V.
but I doubt he will approve it, as these types of blogs are more about being commercial enterprises than providing factual information. It would be better for his blog if he ran around with researchers at John Hopkins University or Harvard School of Public Health rather than Olympic Hopefuls.
Now, I don't claim to be an "expert", but I do know how to ask the right questions and look for the information in peer-reviewed scientific journals. I also know how to compile the information of several studies to give a fairly educated estimate on realistic conclusions that can be made.
I would love to start a blog that not simply told people "facts" but rather taught readers how to ask the right questions concerning information and studies presented to them.
jv