Pajarita wrote:
You are right, of course, that we continue to learn and find out new things about nutrition but I think that everybody would agree that knowledge of human physiology and our understanding of the digestive system is PRETTY good and accurate by now - especially when it comes to something as simple as measuring PH. And if they say that all food ends up been super acidic in the stomach to later switch to alkaline in the small intestine through the actions of pancreatic enzymes, I don't see any reason to doubt them. But, of course, you are entitled to your opinion and if you don't want to believe this, it's your prerogative.
The fallacy of appealing to higher authority is well known and when i was on the dabating team we were never allowed to use any of the fallacys. This was a very generalized statement to the pont of becoming a fallacy and I will cover that in the next paragraph. We so often die from our diets more than before so I cant agree with you or believe in the newest theory that comes along, when there are people who have been on diets and have concrete evidence of the improvements. The more we understand the more there is to understand. We still have a long way to go.
You posted this " And if they say that all food ends up been super acidic in the stomach to later switch to alkaline in the small intestine through the actions of pancreatic enzymes" ........This is what you do not seem to understand.
The food we eat today, tax those systems. More importantly super acid means nothing....what is the exact correct range of ph level for the stomach? What is the correct level for the small intestines? how much is too much?....Those are the important questions that are not anwered by your statement.
Here is a link to help you to understand better. it talks about the acidity and alkalinity in more detail.
http://www.enzymestuff.com/digestion.htm But you need to do a lot more research to be able to make a claim like this, since you have no ph levels to make a good argument you can support.
Chris Kessler, who is not even talking about whole raw food diets and is talking about mainly meats, so was not a relevant link in that way, talks about testing through urine, but all whole raw foodists i know do the test with the ph of the skin, since the urine is temporary and not a good indicator of long term changes in the body.
i do want to go through all your links and refute them one by one, there were so many links, they were either from non credible sources or used in a way that did not apply to your argument or to how things really work in the body. It makes it seem like eat whatever you want and your pancreas will fix it all. The pancreas in people has many problems today from overtaxing including but not limited to Hypoglycemia, diabetes and the depleting of digestive enzymes.
I dont even want to have an argument I only wanted more people comenting on what they think of feeding high levels of grains to parrots. You viewpoint is made very clear already, my viewpoint is made as clear as i want to make it, I do not want to lapse into a human health and eating debate, it is a study i have been making for years and my diet and health are already established and argument like that are more suited to groups about human diets. I think more than enough has been said already, and we dont even know the correct ph level for parrots
I would like to talk about parrots. Can we agree to do that?
Here are my main three main points that have caused me to question feeding grain to parrots very often:
1.Parrots ate very little grains in the wild, and many of them never ate them at all.
2. The few grains parrots did eat in the wild were not cultivated by humans and were more easily digestible raw and not like the grains we have cultivated for today. Even though parrots will in recent times eat farmers crops we do not know what that will do to them in the long term.
3. Parrots ate no cooked grains in the wild.