Current Features

Seemingly Ineluctable Logic on Gay Marriage
Does Obama Prove We're a Post-Racial Society?
Watching Both Sides: Obama Derangement Syndrome?
Mixing Science Fiction and Politics? Oh My!
Still Smearing Palin?
Michael Crichton on SETI
TV Influencing Teen Behavior?
The Messiah Raises the Dead
Gay Marriage
More Hugo "Not-A-Dictator" Chavez News
Colin Powell: Not a Huge Fan of Democracy
Christopher Buckley: Bewitched, Bothered, or Bewildered?

Read the Front Page

Topics

Blogging
Computers and Technology
Conspiracy Theories
Crime and Punishment
Dictatorships
Economics
Education
Election 2008
Entertainment
Europe
Faith and Philosophy
Faith and Politics
Features
France
Fun
General
Genocide
Happy Stuff
Health
History
Human Rights
Humor
International
Iraq
Left Versus Right
Libertarians
Life Skills
Media Bias
Personal Notes
Politics
Product Reviews
Quick Alerts
Quixtar
Racism
Reality-Based News
Ron Paul
Science
Science Fiction
Sexuality
Sick & Wrong Department
Society
The Arab Street
The Arts
The Church of Gaia
Travel
Words, Words, Words
Your Money

Archives

November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

Search


The Blogosphere

BitsBlog
Beyond the Rim
Common Sense and Wonder
Dissecting Leftism
Drive-Thru Musings
FunMurphys.com
Investor Blogger
Iowa Geek
La Shawn Barber
The Littlest Apologist
Mark D. Roberts
Muddling Towards Maturity
Quixtar/Amway Infiltrator
Quixtar Blog
Quixtar Sucks
Sinking in Quixand
Zappe Family Blog


Dr. Wayne Dyer on Food and Chemistry

Though I've never met him, I'd guess Dr. Wayne Dyer is a probably a nice guy. I have friends who to base their life around his work, so when he speaks, I know people are listening.

New Age authors like Dr. Dyer talk a lot about "energy": how to get it, how to keep it, how to keep lower beings from leeching yours away. When talking about "energy", such authors commonly shift between physics, emotional, and some kind of spiritual implications of the word: as though feeling happy made you more moral, or as though kinetic energy was related to happiness. Even food is involved in managing this "energy". For example, in "Seven Secrets of a Joyful Life", Dr. Dyer gives his followers this advice:

Become conscious of the foods you eat. Foods high in alkalinity such as fruits, vegetables, nuts, soy, nonyeast breads and virgin olive oil are high-energy foods and will strengthen you, while highly acidic foods such as flour-based cereals, meats, dairy and sugars lower energy and will weaken you.

Certainly, we'd agree that we'll be healthier if we eat better foods, or that fruits and vegetables are better for you than sugar. I have no quarrel with that. Instead, look at Dyer's reasoning and justification: "Acidic" foods take away energy, while "Alkaline" foods increase energy and make you stronger. What should we make of such claims?

First, it's worth nothing that Dyer is confused about what foods are "alkaline" and what foods are "acidic". Based on Dyer's advice, I've picked common foods from this and this guide to food acidity, and sorted them as Dr. Dyer describes. Note that lower pH numbers are MORE acidic. (For simplicity, where a range was given I used the median value. Also, since I couldn't find "flour-based cereals", I included pure sugar and flour.)

Table 1: Dr. Dyer's
"Alkaline" Foods
Food pH
Asparagus 5.0
Bananas 3.8
Beans 6.0
Blueberries 3.7
Celery 5.8
Crackers 7.8
Grapes 4.0
Green Olives 3.7
Lettuce 5.9
Onions 5.6
Oranges 3.6
Peaches 3.5
Pineapple 4.2
Plums 3.7
Red Apple 3.9
Strawberries 3.2
Tofu 7.2
Average pH 4.7
Table 2: Dr. Dyer's
"Acidic" Foods
Food pH
Chicken 6.6
Egg 7.5
Fish 6.7
Cheddar Cheese 5.9
Cream 6.5
Flour 6.2
Ground beef 5.7
Ham 6.0
Milk 7.4
Pure sugar 5.5
Roast turkey 6.3
Average pH 6.4

As you can see, Dr. Dyer has it almost exactly backwards: his "low-acid" foods are some of the most acidic foods available, having very low pH values! Conversely, the foods he descibes as "acidic" are, in fact, generally much more alkaline!

Second, if we were to take his advice seriously, we would conclude pure cane sugar (at pH 5.5) is much healthier than blueberries (pH 3.7) because it is much more alkaline (i.e. has a lower pH number). In truth, as far as I understand, there's much more to eating healthy than simply looking at "acidity". Oranges, filled with citiric acid (thus very acidic), are fairly healthy, but saltine crackers or matzah (among the "nonyeast breads" Dyer recommends) are basicly just a big, nutrition-free carbohydrate -- even though they are quite alkaline.

Third, how this translates into a moral or spiritual dimension is even more of a mystery: Is a healthy Nazi a more spiritual person than a sick Nun? Were the Jews in concentration camps less moral than their better-fed captors? Does a quest for having positive feelings generally translate into good morals, or is it exactly the reverse?

My point isn't to mock Dr. Dyer here. As I said at the begining, I'm sure he's a quite nice person. My point is simply this:

It took me only a few minutes to find the given tables, and look up those values. I have only a few hundred readers, at most. If Dyer, who probably has hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of followers, does so little research before dispensing authoritative-sounding advice on areas we can easily check, then why should we trust his advice on spiritual matters, which we cannot as easily check?

Comments

First, it's worth nothing that Dyer is confused about what foods are "alkaline" and what foods are "acidic".

This is something I had been puzzled about for a while. I don't follow Dr. Wayne Dyer in specific, but I had heard a lot of health gurus talk about "acidic" and "alkaline foods" and noted as you had that their categories didn't seem to make any rational sense. I've come to the understanding that Dyer is using a shorthand here. He's not talking about the pH of foods, per se, but of the effect that they have on the body. So because citric acid ( or mineral citrates ) make the body more alkaline, they're listed as "alkaline" foods. Meats (which are more alkaline themselves), but make the body more acidic when consumed, are listed as "acidic."
a supporting link

Though I agree with you 100%, it'd be wonderful if the good doctor actually said what he meant. Sometimes attempts to oversimplify can actually increase confusion. Would terms like "acid forming" instead of "acidic" really be that difficult for listeners to wrap their minds around? Another instance of this oversimplification is when masseuses talk about removing "toxins" from the body instead of just saying "lactic acid." There are a lot of things in new age philosophy that bother me, but the pervasive use of language that divorces reccommendations from their underlying reasoning is one of the worst.

Posted by: Ryan on October 5, 2006 01:05 PM

Ryan,

First, thanks for an extremely helpful response and link, which makes things perhaps at least a bit less unclear. But yet, re-reading Dyer's exact words, I agree: if he had meant "acid-forming", he should simply have said that. Instead, he talks about "foods high in alkalinity..." which literally means they themselves contain "alkalinity."

So I'd guess he actually did believe, when saying that, that he was referring to their content, not their impact. Thus, I'm guessing he simply heard it somewhere else and misunderstood. But at least that explains where he's getting it from, and what he probably should have meant to say.


Yet another problem is that he's still apparently getting the list wrong: He specificly recommends nuts, nonyeast breads, and olive oil as "alkaline"[-causing, presumably] yet the link you have supplied clearly lists all three categories as strong "acidifiers!"

So my point would still remain: that he's still spouting stuff without even taking the time to make sure he's giving the right advice, such as by understanding -- to at least the degree you do -- what the whole acid/alkaline thing is about, and making sure he didn't recommend the wrong foods, which he still apparently did.

Yes, we can still all agree on vegetables. But so? My mom said as much, without all the mumbo-jumbo.


Next, I'd point out even if that's what he's going for, it still sounds
half-baked:

Many people believe eating foods that "make the body (or the blood) acid" is bad for our health. Well folks, this is very simple. Eating any food does not make your blood or your body more or less acid. This is complete nonsense...

Both your bloodstream and all your organs are buffered to maintain the pH level (the standard measure of acidity) within very close limits. Any deviation from this narrow range results in severe, life-threatening illness. You would need to eat an entire bottle of antacids at once to decrease the acidity of your body. There is very little you can do to increase the acidity because your body responds very rapidly so the pH of your blood does not vary as a result of eating.

And here:

Some people believe that 'acid' foods make the blood/body more 'acid' and that this is bad for you. This belief does not make physiological sense and is completely unscientific. There are foods that create acid or alkaline ash, but this affects the pH of urine only. There is no food that will alter the pH level of your body - your blood and organs are tightly buffered to maintain the pH level within very close limits....

The consumption of acidic foods like lemons and vinegar would not alter the level of acid in your blood stream because your stomach produces hydrochloric acid to aid in the digestion of these foods and then when the stomach empties into the intestine the pancreas neutralises the acidity with an alkaline solution containing enzymes. Your body responds very quickly to any changes to blood acidity so the pH of your blood does not vary as a consequence of eating.


Another instance of this oversimplification is when masseuses talk about removing "toxins" from the body instead of just saying "lactic acid."

I'd heard this one previously, and did some research, and found it's similarly incorrect:

Contrary to popular belief, this increased concentration of lactate does not directly cause acidosis, nor is it responsible for muscle pain or "burning". This is because lactate itself is not capable of releasing a proton, and secondly, the acidic form of lactate (lactic acid) cannot be formed under normal circumstances in human tissues.

Lactose is actually necessary for producing movement, rather than being, as a masseuse might assure us, a "toxin."


There are a lot of things in new age philosophy that bother me, but the pervasive use of language that divorces reccommendations from their underlying reasoning is one of the worst.

Careful Ryan! That critical attitude will drain you of energy, and lower your vibrational frequency!

Posted by: Tim (Random Observations) on October 5, 2006 10:01 PM

Ryan - I wasn't responding to your comments, which I did read; I was responding to the original post, as many people do in forums. It doesn't have to be a discussion about others' comments. I was reinforcing the idea that the post is flawed.

But now that you mention it, I'm not saying I agree with Dyer or the 'law of attraction' either. It's just discouraging to read this critique of his work based purely on bad assumptions, and worse yet that although you pointed out its fatal flaw, you still seem to agree with the original post in some ways. The critique is based on a misunderstanding of the subject matter from a scientific/medical viewpoint.

Of course I'm aware that many health "gurus" don't seem to know what they are talking about either. We don't have to be like them. But Dr. Dyer actually seems like one of the better ones in many ways, at least he used to be.

Acid and alkaline-forming substances in foods are well understood by the medical community. Most foods and dietary substances have a limited effect on the blood ph, but as you know there are a few such as citric acid which can have a greater effect.

Vague references to "Toxins" are highly touted by health gurus, and also not well understood. But everyday bodily toxins are also very well understood, such as ammonia which is processed and converted by the liver, or there's BUN (Blood Urea Nitrogen). Excess of normal body toxins can lead to acidosis, which in some cases can be corrected by dietary means, but usually indicates a bigger problem.

There are also a host of other reasons why the foods on the left side of the chart are likely to be more healthy, and it goes so far beyond whether they are simply acid or alkaline-forming. It seems a shame to start out with a misunderstanding about something as simple as this. Doesn't leave much of anywhere to go from there...

Posted by: Greg on November 14, 2008 01:47 PM

Add your two cents...

The comment rules will apply. Please post only once.

















« Mithraism, Jesus, and Christianity | Front Page | Page Two | China's "Death Buses" Hit the News »