"I know of no evidence that this approach works as promised. One can go back decades and find example after example of craziness where people are told to eat certain foods, in a certain order, or combine foods in some magic way. At the end of the day, whether a person loses weight depends on whether the calories they take in are less than those they burn off. From what we know, calories are calories, and no magic combination of foods is likely to deliver any special results. Taking in cider vinegar may make you sick and unwilling to eat, so I guess this could be a sort of dieting, but not one I would ever recommend."

http://www.webmd.com/content/article/49/40236.htm

There are a couple of discussions in this forum from awhile back that deal with cider vinegar and its promotion for weight loss, and you can use the search function to find them. I'd link to them, but I'm concerned that rereading them would make me lose my appetite. :)

One person on the list is rabidly against the use of apple cider vinegar, and regularly makes posts to that effect. Read through the various threads on apple cider vinegar and make up your own mind. Many folks do believe it is helpful. I am one of those people.

I'd like to say it was a great help for me but I ended up gagging from the taste so badly that I wasn't able to use it long enough to see effects.

My aunt, however, used to drink it straight a couple times a day and when you combined that with her diet and exercise plan (3-5 miles a day of walking) she lost about 100lbs. But I woldn't say it was just the ACV, it was a combination of that, diet and exercise.

It is NOT a miracle cure.

The good results always seem to come about when people consume fewer calories and exercise, no matter what supplement or alleged weight loss aid they're taking. Even the pill pushers on TV acknowledge this fact, when (usually in small print) they accompany fantastic stories of weight loss with the reminder that their supplement should be combined with a proper diet and exercise.

Eating less and exercising more is the key, not cider vinegar or other 'miracle" supplements.

By the way, overdoing on vinegar could potentially damage the sensitive lining of your throat and esophagus, but it won't make your blood acidotic. The body's acid-base balance is tightly regulated by physiologic mechanisms that can't be overcome by diet apart from exceptional circumstances, usually when there is preexisting disease involving the kidneys and/or lungs.

Here's a good link debunking common misconceptions about acid-base balance.

The biologist who informed me that too much apple cider vinegar can result in acidosis has credentials. He did indiate it would take a lot of acv to result in acidosis. As people vary greatly in what each one of us can tolerate, I think it is best to mention any possible known consequences and to caution moderation.

I know a man who drinks eight ounces of green tea vinegar daily. Personally, I think he is not using moderation. However, this man has an exceptional constitution. Perhaps there will be no long-term ill effects for him.

"The biologist who informed me that too much apple cider vinegar can result in acidosis has credentials."

Probably they aren't in the area of human nutrition.

There's a widespread belief among advocates of alternative medicine, that otherwise healthy people suffer systemic "acidosis" or "alkalosis" if they don't eat the right diet ("right" being defined as "natural" foods, insufficient vegetables or supplements etc.). As the link I provided shows, this view reflects a lack of understanding of the body's acid-base control mechanisms.

Vinegar, whether derived from apple cider or not, is not a worthwhile diet aid, but it's not going to make otherwise healthy people acidotic unless they inject it intravenously.

Citing one study, or one entry from a medical journal, does not substantiate a point view. Citations should be provided for all quotes as a matter of common courtesy. When doing well-rounded research there are questions to consider. Who wrote that? What credentials does that person have? Does that person have credibility within their scientific community? What other points of view have been published?

From Wikipedia: Acidosis
"For acidosis referring to acidity of the urine, see renal tubular acidosis.

Acidosis is an increased acidity (i.e. an increased hydrogen ion concentration). If not further qualified, it refers to acidity of the blood plasma.

Generally, acidosis is said to occur when arterial pH falls below 7.35, while its counterpart (alkalosis) occurs at a pH over 7.45. Arterial blood gas analysis and other tests are required to separate the main causes.

Strictly speaking, the term acidemia would be more appropriate to describe the state of low blood pH, reserving acidosis to describe the processes leading to these states. Nevertheless, most physicians use the terms interchangeably. The distinction may be relevant where a patient has factors causing both acidosis and alkalosis, where the relative severity of both determines whether the result is a high or a low pH.

The rate of cellular metabolic activity affects and, at the same time, is affected by the pH of the body fluids. In mammals, the normal pH of arterial blood lies between 7.35 and 7.50 depending on the species (e.g. healthy human-arterial blood pH varies between 7.35 and 7.45). Blood pH values compatible with life in mammals are limited to a pH range between 6.8 and 7.8. Changes in the pH of arterial blood (and therefore the extracellular fluid) outside this range result in irreversible cell damage (Needham, 2004)."

The Wiki entry does highlight the tight control the body's regulatory systems have over acid-base balance, so that typical diets don't make a person acidotic or alkalotic. The Merck Manual has this to say: "The blood's acid-base balance is precisely controlled, because even a minor deviation from the normal range can severely affect many organs. The body uses different mechanisms to control the blood's acid-base balance."

Their section on acidosis is helpful in understanding what can bring about this condition. Note that their examples of ingested substances that could cause acidosis include poisons and drug overdoses. Vinegar doesn't fall into that category - even drinking fairly large quantities of it, you'd be more likely to get nauseous and upchuck rather than see your body pH change appreciably.

I'm concerned about its potential for inducing uncontrollable laughter, though ("HAHAHAHA!!!"). ;)

There's the likely explanation for weight loss.

Exercise also can lead to better mental "focus" and clarity.

So you can take the credit for these beneficial changes - not the ACV.

I am not knocking it , just asking questions. but if we change our eating habits, wouldn't that do the same thing, and yes with some form of exercise? ttoo much of something hurts than helps? Mary

An apple a day has nutritional benefits, but is quite different from vinegar. Vinegar contains acetate and other short chain fatty acids. These have a number of biological effects that may not be found in a plain apple.

The best "simple and small things" for reflux are the tried, true and documented ones - such as losing weight and avoiding triggers like alcohol and caffeine.

Anyway, I have been using apple cider vinegar for a year or so, and while I don't have scientific studies to back me up, I do have a few observations. For me, I haven't had any "miracle cures" from the stuff, but was healthy to begin with and haven't had any colds, flus, or any other illnesses since beginning the acv, while everyone I know has been deathly ill at least once this winter. I'm chalking that up to a good immune system though. The main benefit of acv for me is that it makes water so much easier to drink. I just put a splash in a quart jar and can drink the whole thing without feeing nauseated, bloated, etc. I do this all day long and never have to stress about my 8-10cups a day, ha, what a joke! A quarter of a fresh lemon (ReaLemon, etc. doesn't work) does the same thing, but is much more expensive. Staying hydrated is key to both good health and weight loss, and for some reason, the acidulated water seems to work really well. I think it has to do with how the body's pH and so on. However, DO NOT DRINK white vinegar OR commercial apple cider vinegar or pretty much anything but the raw stuff. It may not have to be organic but it does have to be raw. The store brand/Heinz/whatever you have stuff is waaayyy too acidic and will cause esophageal burning, tooth enamel damage, and the like. Save it for cleaning! Raw ACV is much milder, and can be drunk straight if you really want to without plugging your nose. And it's really not that expensive- I pay $10 for a gallon which we use for everything and it lasts about 4 months. Definitely worth the extra few bucks.

One last thing I have to say about debunking health claims with scientific studies: these studies ALWAYS say that there is no basis to whatever. Your brother, your mother, your neighbor, your dog could take x(alternative health or traditional remedy) and feel/see results and there would always be a study for someone to quote that says "we find no benefit, ah, but avoid triggers, and btw, here is a lovely merck-sponsored pill that will completely fix you with oh, only these side effects, don't listen to your mother/brother/dog, we are EXPERTS." please. aren't these forums for people to share information, not be shills for the pharmaceutical industry?

eric, i understand you live in ohio. i grew up in ohio, and suffered from the same sort of "informed skepticism" for anything new and different or that could possibly have come from california. it's a defense mechanism that i see today in my family who still live there- "no everything is just fine, ohio is a fine place with many open-minded people and a very low cost of living!" well, you get what you pay for to a certain extent... (though i do have dreams of that rich black soil.) really, the world is full of unproven health cures and all sorts of undocumented other stuff too! just open your mind, or at least let others open theirs without trying to present some kind of "fair and balanced" view. thanks.

"One last thing I have to say about debunking health claims with scientific studies: these studies ALWAYS say that there is no basis to whatever."

Not at all. Some well-conducted studies do find benefits in alternative remedies - they're quoted in this forum all the time (see the current thread on ginkgo, for example).
There are people who don't want to bother keeping up with research. They'd rather take the word of someone they don't know on the Internet, and try various things based on these testimonials. The downside to that is the risk of running through a bunch of useless therapies, often at considerable expense and occasional risk to one's health (either from the products themselves or having a condition for which valid therapy exists deteriorate).

It takes a little bit of effort to learn about research studies and weigh which ones are valid, but the outcome can mean better health and less money and time wasted.

There is genetic, age-related and medical condition-related variability in how humans respond, but it doesn't prevent us from establishing many valuable drugs and treatments that work well in the vast majority of patients. If we couldn't research and develop pharmaceutical drugs because of supposed individual uniqueness, it follows that herbs and supplements couldn't be depended on either - but that's not the case.

"Life is a process...Everyone wants a pill or the 'right' fuel, for things...to 'work'"

Well, yes.

Most of us feel we don't have the time or money to try every "cure" under the sun that someone, somewhere has touted as being effective. There are also the issues of disregarding proven therapies for untested ones, and risking toxicities of products that haven't been adequately evaluated.

We are not "machines", but we are also not test tubes on which to experiment with the latest magic elixir.

Vinegar is so bad for you that countless foods are sold with vinegar. Pickled cukes anyone? or salad dressings, don't forget pickled beets. YUM YUM! pickled eggs,mayonaise,Thats all i have in the house at the moment. There are countless more. Can anyone think of any more? Guess i'll have to get my cookbook out.
vickie

Remember, most of the health benefits seen over the long term from using ACV come from the fact that it's slowly cleaning up your liver. Look into the topic of liver flushes if you really want to have some fun.

""The best way to "detox" the body is simply to let your body do its job. Unless you have a medical problem, your body takes care of itself quite nicely, experts say.

"The liver and kidneys are nature's best-kept secret, because they are the weapons to eliminate toxins from your body," says (Christine) Gerbstadt (MD and dietician). "If you are concerned about certain substances in your diet, it is easier and safer to simply eliminate [those substances] rather than engage in unhealthy detox plans."

It seems that some people will flock to the statements of these experts, who run these verification studies, while others will wholeheartedly disagree with them and cling to the old wives' tales of historical cures. But what we often don't know, is the exact details of these studies and the subsequent results. There are so many variations to how these studies can be performed, and how they can phrase the results, that the general public cannot really garner any sort of reliable information from it. For example:

"For instance, one 2007 study of 11 people with type 2 diabetes found that taking two tablespoons of apple cider vinegar before bed lowered glucose levels in the morning by 4%-6%."

"A 2006 study showed evidence that vinegar could lower cholesterol. However, the study was done in rats, so it's too early to know how it might work in people."

"A few laboratory studies have found that vinegar may be able to kill cancer cells or slow their growth. Epidemiological studies of people have been confusing. One found that eating vinegar was associated with a decreased risk of esophageal cancer. Another associated it with an increased risk of bladder cancer."

Excerpts from http://www.webmd.com/diet/apple-cider-vinegar?page=2

These excerpts from WebMD never state what brand of ACV used, exactly how the test was administered, what other dietary habits the subjects had, etc... The list can go on for a long time. It seems that without knowing the details of these studies, one simply cannot rely on them as gospel. Numbers can be phrased in many ways to make the results achieve the goals of the scientist. It seems that one can only rely on the testimonials of the people that one trusts. Even these, must be taken with a grain of salt and considered in their entirety before accepted as truth. I know that my dad, my mom, and my uncle have been using Bragg's ACV with honey and hot water for close to 6 years now. My dad's arthritis is gone, something he has had for 15-20 years from working as a pipefitter. He has lost 40 pounds due to his better diet, but he still accounts some of it to his ACV. My mom's arthritis is gone, something she has had for years from her work as an electrician. My uncle has had a truly bad cough for years during the winter, spring, summer and fall. It didn't matter, it was chronic. He started drinking Bragg's Organic ACV and within a year, it had quieted, happened very infrequently. I don't know if he has kept drinking ACV at this point though. My wife and I have started drinking it, and it is too early to tell any sort of results. Yet I hope that it works, I hope that it aids us, but we aren't going to rely solely on it.

And you don't think the people with the testimonials can be fooling themselves or have hidden motives?

You say you have a mechanical engineering degree. I don't know what kind of work you do, but for the sake of argument let's say it's designing bridge towers and cables to assure that they can handle the stresses of traffic loads. Do you rely on proven equations and work that has been verified by qualified, impartial observers, or do you buy parts from an online distributor who prints website testimonials from people he claims are satisfied customers?

To counter testimonials seen here and elsewhere on the web that praise ACV for every condition under the sun, I see plenty of reports from people who say it didn't help them or made their symptoms worse. Testimonials are a much poorer source of reputable information than well-designed clinical trials (which do not support ACV as a weight-loss aid).

If someone wants to drink ACV as part of a good calorie reduction and exercise plan, loses 40 pounds and credits the ACV for his success - well, I think there may just be other factors involved. But whatever works for you. ;)

I think that you could parse down the wrong choice of brand down into infinity. What is different about Bragg? Different veriety of apples and different strain of yeast and Acetobacter, at the most. If the studies were down with Bragg you could then say well it wasn;t the right age, then talk about how it wasn;t stored at the right temperature, by the end there would be millions of different options for the vinegar and no way to do all of the studies.

The proof needs to be provided by those making the claim that ACV works, they can't just assume its not an issue because it makes them money to sell it.

"If someone wants to drink ACV as part of a good calorie reduction and exercise plan, loses 40 pounds and credits the ACV for his success - well, I think there may just be other factors involved. But whatever works for you. ;)"

I think that this was misinterpreted. The poster was saying that the father gives some credit to the vinegar but most of the credit to diet and exercise.

The truth is, most people go by testimonials. They go by their doctors testimonial, by the testimonial of the drug company, by advertising... think of all the drugs that are on the market that have side effects and are subsequently pulled. ACV in the doses recommended daily (3 tbs, max) is approximately what one would get by eating a salad, a pickle, some bread, oil and vinegar. I don't see any harm in that, nor do I feel there is a need for proof. If it works for one person, it may not necessarily work for another.

I trust Bragg's brand. I trust the integrity of those who are making that product. Some people trust other brands. For me, personally, I don't think "proof" is always necessary. After all, gravity is only a theory...

Who do you listen to?

The Industry

I think ACV is delicious and use it quite often, that does not make it a good treatment for anything other than lack of deliciousness (a problem ravaging the UK :P).

If you go to extreme post modernism you run out of proof for anything, however here in the real world (sorry post modernists, when you start flying around under mind power I will believe you). We trust the doctors testimony on the results of the study, that is different than a testimonial.

"Assigning most of the credit to proven practices like diet and exercise is the correct response, assigning any of it to ACV is not."

Your opinion.

I think you are confused about the definition of a testimonial. When it comes to a drug or treatment, a positive testimonial is simply a person's opinion that something works. Testimonials are inherently untrustworthy because they are so subject to bias, misinterpretation, wishful thinking and coincidence (and that doesn't include the problem of distinguishing real from fake testimonials from people online whom you don't know).

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) depends on facts - proven evidence of effectiveness through well-conducted clinical trials, aided by ongoing clinical observation and review. Rejectionists try to dismiss all of evidence-based medicine by pointing to instances of imperfection, not realizing or caring that it's a strength of EBM that it is constantly under self-examination and subject to revision when new facts are attained.

Contrast that to the claims that apple cider vinegar has magical qualities to cure or relieve a vast number of diseases, claims that rely almost solely on testimonials and the rigid dogma of folklore.

By the way, silversword, if you're looking for a credible spokesman to attack the pharmaceutical industry, better try someone other than Matthias Rath, who's a well-known loony conspiracy theorist, supplement marketer and AIDS denialist (described on the linked site as "the definitive charlatan"), whose activities in South Africa have been extremely destructive to attempts to properly treat AIDS patients in that country.

I'm not looking for a "credible spokesman to attack the pharmaceutical industry". Please don't put words in my mouth.

If you don't consider Matthias Rath credible, why did you link to his website's claptrap about drug companies and "natural" cures? If you don't consider him a reliable or honorable proponent of "alternative medicine", shouldn't that make you think twice about what he's saying?

From Wikipedia's entry on Rath:

"On HIV/AIDS, Rath has disparaged the pharmaceutical industry and denounced antiretroviral medication as toxic and dangerous, while claiming that his vitamin pills could reverse the course of AIDS. As a result, Rath has been accused of "potentially endangering thousands of lives" in South Africa, a country with a massive AIDS epidemic where Rath was active in the mid-2000s.[10]

Rath's claims and methods have been widely criticized by medical organizations, AIDS-activist groups, and the United Nations, among others.[3][4][11][12] South African President Thabo Mbeki and Minister of Health Manto Tshabalala-Msimang have also been criticized by the medical and AIDS-activist community for their perceived support for Rath's claims.[11][13][14] According to doctors with Médecins Sans Frontières,[15], the Treatment Action Campaign, a South African AIDS-activist group,[16] and a former Rath colleague,[17] unauthorized clinical trials run by Rath and his associates, using vitamins as therapy for HIV, resulted in deaths of some participants. In 2008, the Cape High Court found the trials unlawful, banned Rath and his foundation from conducting unauthorized clinical trials and from advertising their products, and instructed the South African Health Department to fully investigate Rath's vitamin trials.[16][18] In 2008, Rath expanded his advertising to Russia, a country where the incidence of HIV/AIDS has been increasing."

Nice. Here's a guy who's in the vitamin supplement business, working to persuade poorly educated South Africans that lifesaving anti-retroviral drugs are dangerous and ineffective, and that his vitamin pills can cure them. What a horrific quack!

"No one is disputing medicine that has been proven. That doesn't mean things that have not been proven don't work."

So, please clarify: do you approve of Rath's experimenting on poor South Africans with vitamin pills when effective anti-AIDS drugs are available, on the theory that, "well, the vitamins might work"?

You're saying we should consider discarding the system that's conquered many infectious diseases, made possible life-preserving transplants, vastly improved survival from trauma and some forms of cancer, and ameliorated or eliminated symptoms from a huge array of diseases, on the way to greatly increasing the human life span - that we should get rid of EBM because of some anecdote in Time magazine?

The allopathic system is largely a rather negative system of dis-ease, not a system which advocates much for maintaining health. That is the reason most of us are on this forum, because we value health and hope to foster it.

So I really hope you will cease pushing YOUR alternative-to-herbal system on those of us who may wish to learn more of the system named in the forum.

There are many others (including numerous participants and visitors to this forum) who'd like to enjoy the benefits of complementary medicine, where whatever has been shown to work (including herbalism, "conventional medicine" or other fields) is followed to the user's maximum benefit (rather than the main goal being to reject whatever is seen as "allopathic" (incidentally, the vast majority of herbalism is allopathic; only a tiny portion still relies on discredited homeopathic practices).

I hope that attempts to make people who support complementary medicine feel unwelcome in this forum will cease.

1. "If you don't consider Matthias Rath credible..."

I never said that.

2. I'm not looking to attack anyone.

"So, please clarify: do you approve of Rath's experimenting on poor South Africans with vitamin pills when effective anti-AIDS drugs are available, on the theory that, "well, the vitamins might work"?"

3. Once again, you have diverted the conversation to your own twisted version of what you want to talk about. We're talking about ACV. Not AIDS. If you want to talk about AIDS, let's start another thread.

Matthias Rath's opinions about the pharmaceutical industry are highly colored by his own motives to profit from selling vitamins/supplements to people who desperately need effective AIDS medication. His allegations about Big Pharma supposedly plotting to withhold information about "natural" remedies and vitamin therapies from patients are an attempt to cast himself as a martyr when AIDS advocacy groups and health authorities crack down on his quackery.

While Rath is a particularly disgusting example of profiting from quackery, he is far from unique among supplement hucksters and other quacks who fight effective regulation and crackdowns on those who prey on the ill, piously claiming that they're acting in the name of "health freedom" (i.e. "freedom to make big profits selling whatever I want for whatever I claim it can do").

The rantings of Rath and others like him are a collection of lies, half-truths and innuendos meant to serve their pocketbooks. If you want to mount a credible argument about why we should trust testimonials about ACV and weight loss and think a general half-baked assault on Big Pharma using the claims of a loon like Rath is the way to accomplish it, you're sorely mistaken.

Some people will trust their grandmother and her assertions that an herbal remedy works more than they will trust their physician that a pill will be effective.

Is one better than the other? Not in my opinion. Don't think for an instant that I am saying there is no place for pharmaceuticals, that I am discounting Western medicine, that I am saying herbal remedies are better or a cure all or anything of the sort.

Apple cider vinegar works for some people. If used in moderation it will not hurt anyone. There is no harm in trying this remedy if not used in excess.

Did I say anything about endorsing Mattias Rath? Did I indicate one iota that I think he's the best person to listen to? Did I say anything about him at all? Nope. I provided a link.

You drew your own conclusions, you ran with them and you put words in my mouth.

"Matthias Rath's opinions about the pharmaceutical industry are highly colored by his own motives..."

Source A makes claim X
There is something objectionable about Source A
Therefore claim X is false

If Rath had a background in the pharmaceutical industry or valid scientific research, and had evidence backing allegations like the one about drug companies intentionally creating new diseases through drug side effects, his words would be worth considering. On the contrary, in addition to the nuttiness of his arguments, his strong profit motive for attacking mainstream drug therapy provides an additional reason to doubt his claims in the absence of proof.

When one espouses a point of view and links to a website echoing those opinions, it's only reasonable that readers will conclude that you find the source to be credible.

If you do think that forum readers should listen to Rath then be forthright enough to say so.

None of this discussion about Rath's activities would have come up had you not linked to his site as a diversion from apple cider vinegar and the role of testimonials.

More here on Rath's rants against the "drug cartel" as a diversionary tactic against his critics.

I think forum readers should do their own research. Much of medicine used today that is EBM was once unsubstantiated. I think the prescription of medicine should be EB. It works, and it keeps people from getting hurt from the processes that were used prior to EBM. But where there is very little chance of injury and there is cause to believe the possibility of having a positive effect I don't see why people should be discouraged.

So you do believe Rath's central claim on the page you linked to, that drug companies want to maintain and expand diseases? And no, I'm not "twisting your words", just trying to get you to give us an unequivocal answer.

"But where there is very little chance of injury and there is cause to believe the possibility of having a positive effect I don't see why people should be discouraged. "

With reference to apple cider vinegar and weight loss, I said earlier in this thread: "If someone wants to drink ACV as part of a good calorie reduction and exercise plan, loses 40 pounds and credits the ACV for his success - well, I think there may just be other factors involved. But whatever works for you. ;)"

So I think it's wise not to believe in miracle agents for weight loss. If one wants to take a couple tablespoons of vinegar a day and additionally follow a smart calorie restriction and exercise plan, I don't discourage that.

Any acid such as ACV can supposedly cause tooth enamel to dissolve so it is recommended to drink such acid solutions thru a straw. Also not advised to brush your teeth soon after drinking but to wait awhile. I think drinking plain water to follow might be advisable to rinse the acid.

We have, however, gotten a revealing look into just how uncomfortable you must feel about publicly identifying with Rath's statements. And with good reason. :)

Silver: "Eric, to answer your question: Yes, I think drug companies want to keep their customers."

Yes, that does answer the question. Drug companies jump on the bandwagon regarding "diseases" and seem to expound upon the symptoms so that they can "treat" those symptoms with their drugs. Look at the commercials for acid reflux. The obvious answer is change your diet first, eat smaller meals, don't eat right before going to bed, reduce spicy and fried food, chew well, eat healthier foods, avoid those that trigger the indigestion. Then, if you still have an issue, perhaps looking into drugs is necessary. Doctors prescribe drugs instead, and often the drugs are meant to be taken only for a few weeks but patients are on them for years. Acid reflux is not a disease, it's a condition that is acquired by not taking care of ones body. And taking a drug such as Prilosec may cause:

"Body As a Whole: Hypersensitivity reactions including anaphylaxis, anaphylactic shock, angioedema, bronchospasm, interstitial nephritis, urticaria, (see also Skin below); fever; pain; fatigue; malaise;

Cardiovascular: Chest pain or angina, tachycardia, bradycardia, palpitations, elevated blood pressure, peripheral edema

Endocrine: Gynecomastia

Gastrointestinal: Pancreatitis (some fatal), anorexia, irritable colon, fecal discoloration, esophageal candidiasis, mucosal atrophy of the tongue, stomatitis, abdominal swelling, dry mouth. During treatment with omeprazole, gastric fundic gland polyps have been noted rarely. These polyps are benign and appear to be reversible when treatment is discontinued. Gastroduodenal carcinoids have been reported in patients with ZE syndrome on long-term treatment with PRILOSEC. This finding is believed to be a manifestation of the underlying condition, which is known to be associated with such tumors. Hepatic: Liver disease including hepatic failure (some fatal), liver necrosis (some fatal), hepatic encephalopathy hepatocellular disease, cholestatic disease, mixed hepatitis, jaundice, and elevations of liver function tests [ALT, AST, GGT, alkaline phosphatase, and bilirubin]

Metabolic/Nutritional: Hypoglycemia, hyponatremia, weight gain

Musculoskeletal: Muscle weakness, myalgia, muscle cramps, joint pain, leg pain

Nervous System/Psychiatric: Psychiatric and sleep disturbances including depression, agitation, aggression, hallucinations, confusion, insomnia, nervousness, apathy, somnolence, anxiety, and dream abnormalities; tremors, paresthesia; vertigo

Respiratory: Epistaxis, pharyngeal pain

Skin: Severe generalized skin reactions including toxic epidermal necrolysis (some fatal), Stevens-Johnson syndrome, and erythema multiforme; photosensitivity; urticaria; rash; skin inflammation; pruritus; petechiae; purpura; alopecia; dry skin; hyperhidrosis

Special Senses: Tinnitus, taste perversion

Ocular: Optic atrophy, anterior ischemic optic neuropathy, optic neuritis, dry eye syndrome, ocular irritation, blurred vision, double vision

Urogenital: Interstitial nephritis, hematuria, proteinuria, elevated serum creatinine, microscopic pyuria, urinary tract infection, glycosuria, urinary frequency, testicular pain

Hematologic: Agranulocytosis (some fatal), hemolytic anemia, pancytopenia, neutropenia, anemia, thrombocytopenia, leukopenia, leucocytosis."

I do believe a lot of what Rath says. I do think that drug companies want to maintain disease. The increase in direct marketing to the consumer has lead to people self-diagnosing and asking their doctors, even pressuring their doctors, into prescribing them the drugs they see on television. The FDA does not check drug ads for accuracy before they are run and after 1997 only the major side effects are required to be in the ad.

Claritin is another example. It is only 11% more effective than a placebo at 10 milligram doses-the recommended dose...and because it does not mention what the ad is for after naming the drug it circumvents the requirement to list side effects by the FDA...but you should..."ask your doctor about Claritin"...

I find this sneaky and the continuous marketing of drugs with heavy side effects to people who may be hurting and confused is unethical, IMO. I think it shows that drug companies are not interested in the people actually resolving their health issue, they just want customers.

Except that wasn't an answer to the question, silversword. We have, however, gotten a revealing look into just how uncomfortable you must feel about publicly identifying with Rath's statements. And with good reason. :)"

I think, Eric, that I have answered your question.

All of those lifestyle modification issues (which also include cutting back on or eliminating coffee and alcohol) are part of the standard mainstream treatment of reflux, and are publicized and available from many sources, including Internet articles. By the time someone's reflux is bad enough that they seek medical attention, often they've either attempted to eliminate offending foods and self-dosed with antacids. It does happen that even if advice to lose weight and change diet is followed by the patient, reflux may continue (there are other potential causes for reflux, including anatomic variations, that don't reflect something under the patient's control). Effective anti-reflux drugs are not cheap, and do not get prescribed without other, potentially correctable factors also being emphasized. Telling people to lose weight and give up cigarettes and alcohol has its limitations, as you might guess.

Congratulations on being able to find a list of potential Prilosec side effects (many of which do not qualify as "diseases", most of which are extremely uncommon and not even definitively associated with the drug (but which have been reported in users, and so make the kind of exhaustive lists that you see in publications like the Physician's Drug Reference).

So when you look at a list of potential side effects for Prilosec (or any other prescription drug), you see a deliberate attempt by drug companies to "maintain" or "expand" disease? And your evidence for this is that drugs are advertised on TV for (in the case of Prilosec) a painful and highly annoying condition that can lead to esophageal cancer?

There's a popular idea among some that since physicians and drugs have provided substantial relief for certain painful and debilitating conditions but not permanent cures, there must be some kind of plot to keep people sick and under treatment - rather than the logical and informed answer that these conditions are difficult to combat and haven't yet lent themselves to radical quick fixes. Alt med practitioners haven't found these cures either; if they had they'd be Nobel Prize winners and owners of fabulous wealth, but it isn't happening.

After numerous requests for an answer, we've finally gotten you to acknowledge that you believe Rath's sweeping claim that drug companies want to "maintain" diseases (never mind all the research they sponsor to ameliorate or eliminate them), and that you apparently find the existence of side effects as an attempt to "expand diseases". So you do buy into Rath's paranoid conspiracy theories to at least this extent.

silversword "I do believe a lot of what Rath says

In addition to the Rath anti-pharm rants you linked to previously, do you also believe Rath when he blames World War II, apartheid, the 9/11 attacks and the Iraq War on the pharmeceutical industry?

Do you think he's really a believable source for non-evidence based views on medicine and health? Or (using the sort of temporizing phrase he's fond of), could it be that he's a self-aggrandizing loon who takes advantage of human suffering to promote unproven and useless vitamin remedies for financial benefit?

No.

Good to see, though, that at least some of the nuttiness in his repertoire is apparently too much for you to stomach.

BOSTON — In a first-year pharmacology class at Harvard Medical School, Matt Zerden grew wary as the professor promoted the benefits of cholesterol drugs and seemed to belittle a student who asked about side effects.

Mr. Zerden later discovered something by searching online that he began sharing with his classmates. The professor was not only a full-time member of the Harvard Medical faculty, but a paid consultant to 10 drug companies, including five makers of cholesterol treatments.

"I felt really violated," Mr. Zerden, now a fourth-year student, recently recalled. "Here we have 160 open minds trying to learn the basics in a protected space, and the information he was giving wasn’t as pure as I think it should be."

Mr. Zerden’s minor stir four years ago has lately grown into a full-blown movement by more than 200 Harvard Medical School students and sympathetic faculty, intent on exposing and curtailing the industry influence in their classrooms and laboratories, as well as in Harvard’s 17 affiliated teaching hospitals and institutes.

They say they are concerned that the same money that helped build the school’s world-class status may in fact be hurting its reputation and affecting its teaching.

The students argue, for example, that Harvard should be embarrassed by the F grade it recently received from the American Medical Student Association, a national group that rates how well medical schools monitor and control drug industry money.

Who in the supplement industry is taking responsibility to curb Matthias Rath's wrongful and harmful claims about AIDS treatments?

What does this have to do with the lack of evidence that any brand of apple cider vinegar helps with weight loss?

There is another "interesting" piece of info about "big business" medicine on the posted link. Anyone feel like a "pawn" in the system after reading?

The organization whose site luckygal linked to (and which seems to consist mostly of Dr. Samuel Epstein) appears to exist to attack the American Cancer Society for being hung up on diagnosing, treating, and researching the causes of cancer (how evil of them ;), while allegedly ignoring cancer prevention, at least the myriad unproven environmental causes Dr. Samuel Epstein is convinced are responsible for most cancers, although it is very difficult indeed to find any original research performed by Dr. Samuel Epstein to prove his theories. Dr. Epstein lists a raft of publications on his website, but most of them seem to consist of things like press releases and op-ed articles (he even cites letters he wrote to the New York Times, as though that's part of a scholarly body of work).

This is all very entertaining, but how are we doing on showing that vinegar helps you lose weight?

I like to consume my ACV as a salad dressing. A little olive oil, some Spike seasoning, some crushed garlic, and a little red wine vinegar to sweeten the taste. Sometimes I put some honey in there too. On days when I'm feeling the need for a little spice I dice a hot pepper into it and shake well.

I've never tried it as a weight loss supplement. When I want to lose a few pounds I start counting calories and up my activity. But I do think ACV gives me more energy and may aid my progress in that way.

I've read about it being used as a shampoo too. I've never tried that but I do need to do some sort of cleanse on my hair soon, a break from my usual brand name shampoo.

Interesting note on that article regarding shampoos and talcum powder. I'm going to post a new thread so we don't pull this one on a different track, but I'd love to discuss that with you.

In another thread I listed all of the zillion health conditions and problems ACV proponents are claiming it can heal. By contrast, researchers are reporting the following disorders that vinegar is no good for:

"M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas, concludes there is no evidence of any benefit of vinegar for:

Acne, amino acid source, anti-aging, antiseptic for gastrointestinal tract, appetite suppression, arthritis, asthma, bladder cleanser, bowel stone prevention in horses, circulation improvement, colitis, dandruff prevention, decongestant, dental conditions, detoxification, diarrhea, digestion aid, dizziness, ear discharge, eczema, fatigue, flavoring agent, food poisoning, hair loss, hair rinse, hay fever, headache, hearing impairment, heartburn, hemorrhage, hiccoughs, high blood pressure, household sanitizer, high cholesterol, immune enhancement, infections, insect bites, insomnia, itchy scalp, kidney cleanser, leg cramps, menstruation regulation, mental alertness, mineral source, nail problems, nervousness, nose bleeds, obesity, osteoporosis, queasy stomach, scurvy prevention, shingles, sinus congestion, skin toner, sore eyes, sore throat, strength enhancement, stuffy nose, sunburn, tired eyes, vaginitis, varicose veins, viral hepatitis, vitamin source, or weight loss." (bolding added).

Still makes part of a good salad dressing though.

I see you're taking issue with just those two items. I take it therefore you accept that there's no valid evidence that vinegar is good for weight loss?

More from another source listing why ACV is not an effective diet aid:

"One of the oldest diet scam(s) is that apple cider vinegar will cause weight loss. Too many people "get taken" by all sorts of diet and weight loss products. Unfortunately, there are no easy ways to lose weight other than reducing overall calorie intake or increasing your metabolism through exercise.

Weight loss happens by burning more calories than you take in and not by drinking some magic potion like apple cider vinegar to burn fat. If you truly want to burn fat, consume less calories per day and move around more."

silversword, if you want to start another thread on "indications for vinegar as a flavoring agent", feel free. As I've mentioned, it works fine for me as part of salad dressing, so we can have a nice agreeable discussion. :)

You are the one who mentioned ACV as being PROVEN as not being effective for a household sanitizer or a flavoring agent. Yes, that was not the main point of your post, but why did you link to it if you did not believe it or in the very least understand what they were speaking of?

I don't need to start another thread about vinegar as a flavoring agent. I know it's a flavoring agent.

"Vinegar has been in use for thousands of years and its origins are untraceable. One of the earliest references is from the 5th century BC, where Hippocrates recommended its medicinal powers. However, then as now, its main use has beeen as a flavoring and preserving agent. There was no need to invent vinegar as it makes itself without difficulties." ---Oxford Companion to Food, Alan Davisdon [Oxford University Press:Oxford] 1999 (p. 827)

I don't know if ACV works or not as a weight loss supplement. I do know that exercise and eating well work, so that's what I do to maintain a healthy weight. We agree on that point. I think dieting does not work, only changing habits and staying active, otherwise eventually the diet will end and the weight will come back. I know people who swear by ACV. I think in moderation it does no harm. I like it, so I eat it. Providing info for the OP to look at does no harm either. They already have access to a computer, it's not as it they cannot make a judgment call on their own regarding what is posted.

But you don't really care what I think, do you, since opinion matters not if proof isn't present.

Tons of MUMBO JUMBO going on here.... WOW.

I have no idea if drinking any brand of vinegar will help you loose weight, but I can tell you this...

My father is 77 years old and he managed to dropped his cholesterol (LDL) levels 114 points in 8 weeks.

He did not change his diet, he did not start exercising, he did not change his sleep patterns and he did not start any medications, the only thing he did do different is he started drinking BRAGGS vinegar 3 times a day; his doctors were certainly AMAZED.

Maybe a fairy appeared and sprinkled fairy dust on his head while he was sleeping, I don't know, but I am sure "SOMEONE" who reads this will be able to tell me.

lol lol lol

Just a coincidence, probably, like all the other times this has happened.

No reason to distrust testimonials, nope.

Maybe I have made a mistake. I swear the "SUBJECT OF POSTING": is RE: bragg apple cider vinegar for weight loss.

Once again, I could be mistaken.

tee hee

I get really sick (myriad of life-disrupting ailments/symptomes, mostly kidney and Endocrine system-related), and wasn't even able to lead a normal life. It was sincerely horrible; I saw all kinds of doctors, and tried everything I could think of (I'm pretty savvy with nutrition) to help. Symptoms would fluctuate, and in bad spells, I couldn't even walk around or stand for any period of time.

I met a girl who mentioned some similar health problems... we talked about it, and she said that she had done some research (she also explained the research), then stopped eating anything that included the hulls of seeds as an ingredient (or had hulls soaked in it, like vinegar). She also stopped eating complete proteins, fasted every now and then, and only ate raw foods.

I was skeptical, because it sounded so extreme, but tried eating the way she did for a couple days here or there (without fasting), to see what would happen. My symptoms actually improved; the longer the period of time I went eating raw, with no seeds in my diet, and varied foods rather than complete proteins, the better I felt.

Here's the part about the Bragg's ACV:

I've got my health to a point now where I feel completely energetic and healthy, if I eat the way I explained.

I started buying Bragg's ACV because it was the only raw, grainless (seedless), vinegar I could find, and I wanted to make salad dressing. I also started feeling sick again.

I was having salad dressing often enough that I didn't realize what was causing the return of my symptoms, at first. I tried adding and removing different foods (within the aforementioned limitations), with no improvement.

After enough changes, I started noticing that when I didn't eat salad, I felt fine. I changed the ingredients of my salad, with no improvement.

Finally, out of desperation, I started wondering how raw the Bragg's ACV was, if it was sitting in a bottle on that shelf... usually if stores carry a product like that, and it isn't refrigerated, it's pasteurized.

I stopped using Bragg's ACV on my salad, but just had some lemon juice instead. Problem solved! My symptoms immediately improved, indigestion stopped.

To be sure, I ate EXACTLY the same foods for at least 48 hours, without the Bragg's ACV (with lemon juice instead), to see if it was a fluke. My symptoms went away completely.

After the couple days with a very controlled diet, I used the Bragg's ACV on my salad, to see it there were a difference; my indigestion returned, and the next day, I felt terrible.

I've been allergy tested, I have a deadly allergy to Chinese Elm trees, conventional (albeit it numerous) environmental allergies, and an allergy to olives... but I'm not allergic to apples. :P

My system is obviously more sensitive than most people, or already has something amiss, but Bragg's ACV DEFINITELY affects me (and I'm not so much of a special snowflake that I'd be the only one):

Bragg's ACV can make some people sick.

This may not hold true for everyone, but I wanted to at least post a warning, so if Bragg's ACV does negatively affect someone else, they might have an easier time tracking down what might be the cause of their problems.

I'm aware that this isn't something I can explain via clinical tests or a scientific experiment.
I am, however, certain that it isn't a placebo effect or anything along those lines. I expected to be wrong about the Bragg's ACV. I'm used to having crappy symptoms that I can't control, then doing the same experiment with other foods and feeling no result; I was sure I was just grasping at straws.

I don't want to have a big crazy internet flame over it; it's vinegar, and not worth arguing about. I can't explain it; I just know what I experienced. I have no grounds to claim that Bragg's ACV isn't raw, nor am I trying to claim that; this has nothing to do with that... after all, I merely started wondering about pasteurization out of desperation (that's not a phrase you hear often, lol).

I can only confidently state that when I use Bragg's ACV, it makes ME very ill.

Here's something relevant: one of the symptoms I get (relating to my fracked endocrine system) when I digress from my diet limitations, is rapid weight gain (up to 20 lbs. in six weeks), unimpeded by exercise, proper water intake, limited caloric or carbohydrate intake, or anything else.

In short, for me, even small amounts of Bragg's ACV can actually cause rapid, unexplained weight GAIN. :/

The latest link contains more inaccurate claims about ACV allegedly making your body more alkaline. How a weak acid like ACV that's overwhelmed by strong stomach acids is supposed to affect body pH is never explained. There are also the usual falsehoods about ACV's supposed nutritional composition. The truth is that it's a poor source of nutrients.

"Apple cider vinegar contains no measurable amounts of pectin or any other fiber, the basis for cholesterol claims. A tablespoon of apple cider vinegar contains a mere 1 mg of calcium, nowhere near the 1000 milligrams an average adult needs each day. And it contains negligible amounts of minerals.

Nor do its secrets lie in any vitamin, because apple cider vinegar contains no vitamin A, vitamin B6, vitamin C, vitamin E, vitamin K, thiamin, riboflavin, niacin, pantothenic acid, or folate. What about other health-enhancing substances alleged to be in vinegar? It contains no notable amounts of amino acids, ethyl alcohol, caffeine, theobromine, beta-carotene, alpha-carotene, beta-cryptoxanthin, lycopene, lutein or zeaxanthin.

Its benefits come down to a magical "aliveness" and beliefs in an unseen, unmeasurable vital energy that negates all known laws of physics."

The "aliveness" is supposed to be a quality of the "raw" or "virgin" ACV, which has not been shown to offer benefits superior to plain, ordinary vinegar.

It just costs more.