Raw Apple Cider Vinegar?

[HevyMetal]

Anybody here use this stuff?

got a few questions:-

It is supposed to be taken with honey, I read.

Honey turns alkaline in the stomach, whereas the cider-vinegar is acid.

It is said that a slightly acid condition (from the vinegar) is good for fighting bugs,bacteria and what not.

Does the honey neutralize the effects of the vinegar?

Also,on other sites, they tout being slightly alkaline as the best condition for fighting disease and they say this is why (among other reasons) you should eat lots of fruit and veg.

So it would seem contradictory.

Right now I take one teaspoon of cider in 8 ounces of water.
Sometimes with honey ,sometimes without. Maybe once a day. I rinse my mouth out with fresh water after drinking it.

I drink it through a straw because it supposed to be hard on the teeth enamel long term.
Anybody have problems with their teeth because of it?

I have noticed that when I take it, it seems to suppress my desire for "random foraging" in the fridge.

I had the book "Vermont Medicine" years ago by D.C. Jarvis......but I must have let it go as I can't find it now.

One site warns that long term use might create a Potassium deficiency....whereas loyal disciples of cider-vinegar claim that it increases Potassium in the body. Who is right?

I am using the 100% unfiltered,un-pasteurised raw cider-vinegar with the "mother" in it, by Omega Nutrtion.

[Mauidude]

Hey HM! Just popped back on for the first time in months. My wife uses the same apple cider you do. I've read both sides on its use and both sound convincing. My philosophy on this, like other things, is that if it doesn't do any harm, give it a try and see if it helps for whatever ails you. If it doesn't, then I know I wouldn't want to choke the stuff down for nothing.

I'll be interested in letting you be the guinea pig for the rest of us and let us know how it works for you.

BTW: I hope retirement is serving you well.

[Robert2006]

Originally Posted by HevyMetal

Honey turns alkaline in the stomach, whereas the cider-vinegar is acid.
.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/53...-stomach-acid/

I'd be highly surprised if anything stays alkaline in your stomach.

[HevyMetal]

Thanks, MauiDude......

Robert2006:- I made a mistake. Apparently Raw Apple Cider Vinegar is acid at first....but it forms an alkaline "ash".

Diseases do not thrive in alkaline ash.......they love acid ash, which is produced by artificial sugar. Most fruits go alkaline ash when ingested whereas table sugar doesn't.

Processed honey goes acid ash.....whereas raw honey doesn't I'm led to believe.

Real maple syrup goes alkaline instead of acid.

I realize that the stomach is a digestive acid bath.......but never-the-less we still have a constant optimum human pH level which is influenced heavily in the digestive tract by what we eat.

Processed foods turn acid mostly......whereas fruits, salads, green veggies etc.......tend to be alkaline producing.

Cancer loves processed sugar.

I don't have cancer.......but it and other weakening diseases/viruses thrive in the processed artificial acid environment.

It's not just about the stomach.......it's what happens in the digestive tract as well.

One could, arguably, not drink the ACV but instead focus on leaning toward alkaline foods in the form of veggies and fruits.

Why do cancer rates seem to go up?.........well.....we are a SUGAR nation. We ingest the shit by the thousands of tons daily nationwide.

We won't eat anything unless it's sweet flavored.

Compare our diets to some of the native/aboriginal diets around the world in many places...( who incidentally, could smoke yours and my ass when it comes to overland treks/hunting on minimal subsistence)

I think the cure for most diseases and cancer is in the food we do or do not eat.

I think it's a hoaky con that millions are spent on the "cure" for cancer.

The "cure" is.......stop eating the cancer-producing garbage that is sold everywhere.

It's a win-win for the cancer clinics and the sugar/junkfood producers.

First they make a million selling you garbage food......and then they make a million trying to cure you from the diseases you get.

[Robert2006]

Historically not getting things like cancer came from dieing at a young age. Combined with doctors not having the skills to detect cancer or other illness.

How many people even made it to 50ish a thousand years ago?

[HevyMetal]

Well...if a certain religious publication (which I can't name here) is to be believed......some of the people mentioned in the first part of the book are said to have lived 100 years and beyond easily. In fact it mentions them as living several hundred years.
By what measure of time they determined this I don't know.

I think the longevity, generally, of the human populace was cyclical.

Very early they might not have lived long. But as time progressed they lived longer. That is until a certain point in history where human knowledge seemed to stop gaining momentum and instead started moving backward.

This may have been due to supression of knowledge and a hefty dose of belief in superstition. Plus the powers that were in control at that time, wanted to keep people in check by banning scientific thought largely.
At this point, diseases became rampant again and killed off thousands yearly.

I can see why that time was known as "The Dark Ages".

If you compare ancient Asian and east Indian medical knowledge with that of the European middle ages, you can see that European medical practitioners were bordering on being mentally retarded, thanks in large part to the outlawing of independent thinking and beliefs.

Plus........in many places back then,longevity was determined by the size of one's wallet. There were no social medical programs in place.

If you were rich and you got sick, you were basically a lot better off than if you were poor and got sick. (Just like today in many places).

So in large part, the technology and cures and nutrition were/are available to a degree..........but if one cannot afford them then it's just too bad.

So......longevity and life expectancy can be governed by economics.

If the country is very wealthy, and the people in it are all quite well off, and the wealth is to some degree "shared" in terms of well-being, that country's gen-pop will be a lot healthier than a country where the majority of the population is dirt poor.

Throughout history there is a track record of countries being ruled by those that are only interested in having all the wealth/power for themselves. The poor people were considered as being expendable cheap-labor nobodies and if they die.....who cares?

So the death rate in times gone by does not accurately reflect the medical means, diet and technology to prevent it.