Calcium question and mini rant

Does anybody know how much calcium a body can absorb in one dose? My bone
scan came back -2.1, so I figure I'd better add a calcium supplement to my
diet.

I don't mind being 51; I like my earned wisdom (in most things). I don't
even mind my changing looks (much). I HATE what's happening to my
"innards." Six years ago my bone density was just dandy, my combined
cholestrol was in the low 100s (although the HDL was always too low), my
blood pressure ranged aroung 102/54 (give or take a few for each number), my
glucose and triglycerides were low, my weight ranged from 130-135, and only
a couple of inches pooched over my waistline (I did say I don't mind
"much").

Today, post-menopause, my cholestrol is 230 (still too low HDL), blood
pressure 139/84, triglycerides 300 (although the glucose is still low
enough -- 84), weight 151 with a 33 inch waistline and lots of extra pooch
over the waistline.

I need a change in lifestyle, incorporating bone-pounding, cardiovascular
exercise and lots of less fat in my diet, but I have always been abominably
lazy when it comes to activity (I called it "tired"). I never needed to
work at it before and got pretty complacent.


Wake up call long overdue.

x-no-archive: yes

Peahen wrote:
> Does anybody know how much calcium a body can absorb in one dose? My bone
> scan came back -2.1, so I figure I'd better add a calcium supplement to my
> diet.
>
> I don't mind being 51; I like my earned wisdom (in most things). I don't
> even mind my changing looks (much). I HATE what's happening to my
> "innards." Six years ago my bone density was just dandy, my combined
> cholestrol was in the low 100s (although the HDL was always too low), my
> blood pressure ranged aroung 102/54 (give or take a few for each number), my
> glucose and triglycerides were low, my weight ranged from 130-135, and only
> a couple of inches pooched over my waistline (I did say I don't mind
> "much").
>
> Today, post-menopause, my cholestrol is 230 (still too low HDL), blood
> pressure 139/84, triglycerides 300 (although the glucose is still low
> enough -- 84), weight 151 with a 33 inch waistline and lots of extra pooch
> over the waistline.
>
> I need a change in lifestyle, incorporating bone-pounding, cardiovascular
> exercise and lots of less fat in my diet, but I have always been abominably
> lazy when it comes to activity (I called it "tired"). I never needed to
> work at it before and got pretty complacent.
>
>
> Wake up call long overdue.
>
>

Your triglycerides are a pretty direct measure of how carby your diet
is. If you cut out starch and eat more fat, they'll plummet,
practically overnight. Not at all unimportant, since high TGL and low
HDL are far more predictive of cardiovascular disease than LDL or total
cholesterol is.

Also, the fasting glucose test fails to diagnose 70% of women and 48% of
men over 50, as compared to testing after meals with a glucose meter.

Folks are diabetic for many years before the fasting glucose starts to rise.

Your lipids are characteristic of metabolic syndrome.

It's very easy to reverse by cutting out starches and replacing them
with colorful leafy stuff, fats, proteins, nuts, etc.

Higher animal protein consumption is also associated with higher bone
mass in the elderly.

Susan

"Susan" <nevermind@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:5do468F35q87dU1@mid.individual.net...
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Peahen wrote:
>> Does anybody know how much calcium a body can absorb in one dose? My
>> bone scan came back -2.1, so I figure I'd better add a calcium supplement
>> to my diet.
>>
>> I don't mind being 51; I like my earned wisdom (in most things). I don't
>> even mind my changing looks (much). I HATE what's happening to my
>> "innards." Six years ago my bone density was just dandy, my combined
>> cholestrol was in the low 100s (although the HDL was always too low), my
>> blood pressure ranged aroung 102/54 (give or take a few for each number),
>> my glucose and triglycerides were low, my weight ranged from 130-135, and
>> only a couple of inches pooched over my waistline (I did say I don't mind
>> "much").
>>
>> Today, post-menopause, my cholestrol is 230 (still too low HDL), blood
>> pressure 139/84, triglycerides 300 (although the glucose is still low
>> enough -- 84), weight 151 with a 33 inch waistline and lots of extra
>> pooch over the waistline.
>>
>> I need a change in lifestyle, incorporating bone-pounding, cardiovascular
>> exercise and lots of less fat in my diet, but I have always been
>> abominably lazy when it comes to activity (I called it "tired"). I never
>> needed to work at it before and got pretty complacent.
>>
>>
>> Wake up call long overdue.
>
> Your triglycerides are a pretty direct measure of how carby your diet is.
> If you cut out starch and eat more fat, they'll plummet, practically
> overnight. Not at all unimportant, since high TGL and low HDL are far
> more predictive of cardiovascular disease than LDL or total cholesterol
> is.

I love my carbs, but yes, I could cut down.
>
> Also, the fasting glucose test fails to diagnose 70% of women and 48% of
> men over 50, as compared to testing after meals with a glucose meter.

I'm going to have to borrow my mother's meter and see where my blood sugar
is after eating (she tests 2 hrs after meals).

>
> Folks are diabetic for many years before the fasting glucose starts to
> rise.
>
> Your lipids are characteristic of metabolic syndrome.
>
> It's very easy to reverse by cutting out starches and replacing them with
> colorful leafy stuff, fats, proteins, nuts, etc.
>
It's not the replacing but the cutting that hurts. I already eat lots of
veggies, especially in the summer when I eat mostly from my gardent.

> Higher animal protein consumption is also associated with higher bone mass
> in the elderly.
>

I eat lots of animal protein, but I suppose that's compromised by the carbs.

> Susan

x-no-archive: yes

Peahen wrote:

> I love my carbs, but yes, I could cut down.

I was a carbo loader til I found out that's what was doing me in years
ago. Now I don't miss starch, but it was a process, for sure.

>
>>Also, the fasting glucose test fails to diagnose 70% of women and 48% of
>>men over 50, as compared to testing after meals with a glucose meter.
>
>
> I'm going to have to borrow my mother's meter and see where my blood sugar
> is after eating (she tests 2 hrs after meals).

That's too late, often. Sometimes the first phase insulin response is
gone and the second phase is fine. Most folks peak bg is 45-60 minutes
after eating, usually measured from the first bite.

> It's not the replacing but the cutting that hurts. I already eat lots of
> veggies, especially in the summer when I eat mostly from my gardent.

Ah, well, fat and protein then.

>
>
>>Higher animal protein consumption is also associated with higher bone mass
>>in the elderly.
>>
>
>
> I eat lots of animal protein, but I suppose that's compromised by the carbs.

Some of it is roll of the dice. I have extraordinarily high bone
density despite decades of steroids, due to a genetic mutation. My 85
y.o. mother has it, and my sister and brother. So dense that my sister
has had spinal stenosis surgery, my brother has had to have his growing
torus palatinus (we all have it, marker for the mutation) removed
because it was dislocating his teeth... mixed blessing, this high density.

Weight bearing exercise helps, too.

Susan

"Susan" <nevermind@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:5do654F35nta2U1@mid.individual.net...
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Peahen wrote:
>
>> I love my carbs, but yes, I could cut down.
>
> I was a carbo loader til I found out that's what was doing me in years
> ago. Now I don't miss starch, but it was a process, for sure.
>
>>
>>>Also, the fasting glucose test fails to diagnose 70% of women and 48% of
>>>men over 50, as compared to testing after meals with a glucose meter.
>>
>>
>> I'm going to have to borrow my mother's meter and see where my blood
>> sugar is after eating (she tests 2 hrs after meals).
>
> That's too late, often. Sometimes the first phase insulin response is
> gone and the second phase is fine. Most folks peak bg is 45-60 minutes
> after eating, usually measured from the first bite.
>

Good to know. My mother's blood sugar is usually 100-130 two hours after
eating, so she thinks she's fine (she doesn't test every meal, as she's been
told she's "pre-diabetic," rather than diabetic. She is an avid carb
counter, though, perhaps too much, since she doesn't compensate by adding
protein calories. Her doctor became concerned because she's gone from
about 107 lbs. down to 93 lbs in 18 months of counting carbs (she's 81 and
5'1"). She won't add meats because of her blood pressure and cholestrol
and I can't convince her that vegetable fats don't contain the latter.


So if her blood sugar (and mine) is under 180 after an hour, it's okay?


>> It's not the replacing but the cutting that hurts. I already eat lots of
>> veggies, especially in the summer when I eat mostly from my gardent.
>
> Ah, well, fat and protein then.
>
>>
>>
>>>Higher animal protein consumption is also associated with higher bone
>>>mass in the elderly.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I eat lots of animal protein, but I suppose that's compromised by the
>> carbs.
>
> Some of it is roll of the dice. I have extraordinarily high bone density
> despite decades of steroids, due to a genetic mutation. My 85 y.o. mother
> has it, and my sister and brother. So dense that my sister has had spinal
> stenosis surgery, my brother has had to have his growing torus palatinus
> (we all have it, marker for the mutation) removed because it was
> dislocating his teeth... mixed blessing, this high density.
>
> Weight bearing exercise helps, too.
>
> Susan

x-no-archive: yes

Peahen wrote:

> Good to know. My mother's blood sugar is usually 100-130 two hours after
> eating, so she thinks she's fine (she doesn't test every meal, as she's been
> told she's "pre-diabetic," rather than diabetic. She is an avid carb
> counter, though, perhaps too much, since she doesn't compensate by adding
> protein calories. Her doctor became concerned because she's gone from
> about 107 lbs. down to 93 lbs in 18 months of counting carbs (she's 81 and
> 5'1"). She won't add meats because of her blood pressure and cholestrol
> and I can't convince her that vegetable fats don't contain the latter.

Meat and fat will not harm her, carbs will. Grass fed meat and dairy is
very heart healthy, feedlot animal products not so much. The swiss eat
tons of saturated dairy fat, and have low CVD for instance.

Your mother is not pre diabetic, she is a well advanced DM with those
130 numbers at 2 hours. In fact, healthy people with intact pancreatic
function don't rise above 105 even after a sugar load, they just pump
out a lot of insulin and use it efficiently.

>
>
> So if her blood sugar (and mine) is under 180 after an hour, it's okay?

NO! Not even if it's just for a minute.

www.phlaunt.com/diabetes

Note the section on levels where organ damage occurs.


Susan

"Susan" <nevermind@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:5do72oF35sr2jU1@mid.individual.net...
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Peahen wrote:
>
>> Good to know. My mother's blood sugar is usually 100-130 two hours after
>> eating, so she thinks she's fine (she doesn't test every meal, as she's
>> been told she's "pre-diabetic," rather than diabetic. She is an avid
>> carb counter, though, perhaps too much, since she doesn't compensate by
>> adding protein calories. Her doctor became concerned because she's gone
>> from about 107 lbs. down to 93 lbs in 18 months of counting carbs (she's
>> 81 and 5'1"). She won't add meats because of her blood pressure and
>> cholestrol and I can't convince her that vegetable fats don't contain the
>> latter.
>
> Meat and fat will not harm her, carbs will. Grass fed meat and dairy is
> very heart healthy, feedlot animal products not so much. The swiss eat
> tons of saturated dairy fat, and have low CVD for instance.
>
> Your mother is not pre diabetic, she is a well advanced DM with those 130
> numbers at 2 hours. In fact, healthy people with intact pancreatic
> function don't rise above 105 even after a sugar load, they just pump out
> a lot of insulin and use it efficiently.
>
>>
>>
>> So if her blood sugar (and mine) is under 180 after an hour, it's okay?
>
> NO! Not even if it's just for a minute.
>
> www.phlaunt.com/diabetes
>
> Note the section on levels where organ damage occurs.
>
>
> Susan

Boy, time for me to read up.

Thanks, Susan.

x-no-archive: yes

Peahen wrote:

> Boy, time for me to read up.
>
> Thanks, Susan.
>
>

Sure.

Here's something very useful I just saw on another group today:

http://www.healthcentral.com/diabete...eaks-matter/1/

About how peaks and valleys, not just sustained high bg, also do damage.


BTW, make sure you change the lancet when you use your mother's meter.

Susan

"Peahen" <seelengehilfe@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f56j2f$b5i$1@vegh.ks.cc.utah.edu...
> Does anybody know how much calcium a body can absorb in one dose? My bone
> scan came back -2.1, so I figure I'd better add a calcium supplement to my
> diet.

The body doesn't absorb more than 500 mg at a time, so take the 1200 mg in
divided doses. I take 600 at lunch and in evening with dinner. Yeah, I know
I'm not doing what I'm suggesting but I found that if I divided the doses
3-4X/day I end up forgetting 1-2 doses,so I figured it's in me at least and
let my body absorb what it will.

Calcium citrate is the form that's most easily absorbed.Make sure you have
Vitamin D added to enhance absorption, along with magnesium.I take the SISU
Cal/Mg 2:1 with calcium citrate 200 mg, Magnesium 150 mg and D2 200 IU per
tab, four tabs/day.

Roseanne

Peahen <seelengehilfe@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Does anybody know how much calcium a body can absorb in one dose? My bone
> scan came back -2.1, so I figure I'd better add a calcium supplement to my
> diet.
>

I was told to take 500 mg twice a day. For 1000 mg total, if that isn't
clear.

> I don't mind being 51; I like my earned wisdom (in most things). I don't
> even mind my changing looks (much). I HATE what's happening to my
> "innards." Six years ago my bone density was just dandy, my combined
> cholestrol was in the low 100s (although the HDL was always too low), my
> blood pressure ranged aroung 102/54 (give or take a few for each number), my
> glucose and triglycerides were low, my weight ranged from 130-135, and only
> a couple of inches pooched over my waistline (I did say I don't mind
> "much").
>
> Today, post-menopause, my cholestrol is 230 (still too low HDL), blood
> pressure 139/84, triglycerides 300 (although the glucose is still low
> enough -- 84), weight 151 with a 33 inch waistline and lots of extra pooch
> over the waistline.
>
> I need a change in lifestyle, incorporating bone-pounding, cardiovascular
> exercise and lots of less fat in my diet, but I have always been abominably
> lazy when it comes to activity (I called it "tired"). I never needed to
> work at it before and got pretty complacent.

I can't tell you what will work for you, but you might consider low carb
rather than low fat. It raises HDL, lowere triglicerides, and most
people lose weight too.
>
>
> Wake up call long overdue.

In article <f56o92$ed1$1@vegh.ks.cc.utah.edu>,
"Peahen" <seelengehilfe@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Good to know. My mother's blood sugar is usually 100-130 two hours after
> eating, so she thinks she's fine (she doesn't test every meal, as she's been
> told she's "pre-diabetic," rather than diabetic. She is an avid carb
> counter, though, perhaps too much, since she doesn't compensate by adding
> protein calories. Her doctor became concerned because she's gone from
> about 107 lbs. down to 93 lbs in 18 months of counting carbs (she's 81 and
> 5'1"). She won't add meats because of her blood pressure and cholestrol
> and I can't convince her that vegetable fats don't contain the latter.

You might want to let her know that only about 20% of serum cholesterol
comes from dietary cholesterol in most people. Most serum cholesterol
is manufactured in the liver.

> So if her blood sugar (and mine) is under 180 after an hour, it's okay?

I aim for under 140 at 1 hour post prandial.

Priscilla, type 2 diabetic

Susan <nevermind@nomail.com> wrote in news:5do72oF35sr2jU1
@mid.individual.net:

> www.phlaunt.com/diabetes
>

Susan, this is an excellent site - thanks.

But you've probably scared poor Pattie Peahen to... well, I hope to a
long and healthy life. ;-)

Chak

--
Because we don't think about future generations, they will never forget
us.
--Henrik Tikkanen

"Peahen" <seelengehilfe@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f56n26$djm$1@vegh.ks.cc.utah.edu...
>
> "Susan" <nevermind@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:5do468F35q87dU1@mid.individual.net...
>> x-no-archive: yes
>>
>> Peahen wrote:
>>> Does anybody know how much calcium a body can absorb in one dose? My
>>> bone scan came back -2.1, so I figure I'd better add a calcium
>>> supplement to my diet.
>>>
>>> I don't mind being 51; I like my earned wisdom (in most things). I
>>> don't even mind my changing looks (much). I HATE what's happening to
>>> my "innards." Six years ago my bone density was just dandy, my combined
>>> cholestrol was in the low 100s (although the HDL was always too low), my
>>> blood pressure ranged aroung 102/54 (give or take a few for each
>>> number), my glucose and triglycerides were low, my weight ranged from
>>> 130-135, and only a couple of inches pooched over my waistline (I did
>>> say I don't mind "much").
>>>
>>> Today, post-menopause, my cholestrol is 230 (still too low HDL), blood
>>> pressure 139/84, triglycerides 300 (although the glucose is still low
>>> enough -- 84), weight 151 with a 33 inch waistline and lots of extra
>>> pooch over the waistline.
>>>
>>> I need a change in lifestyle, incorporating bone-pounding,
>>> cardiovascular exercise and lots of less fat in my diet, but I have
>>> always been abominably lazy when it comes to activity (I called it
>>> "tired"). I never needed to work at it before and got pretty
>>> complacent.
>>>
>>>
>>> Wake up call long overdue.
>>
>> Your triglycerides are a pretty direct measure of how carby your diet is.
>> If you cut out starch and eat more fat, they'll plummet, practically
>> overnight. Not at all unimportant, since high TGL and low HDL are far
>> more predictive of cardiovascular disease than LDL or total cholesterol
>> is.
>
> I love my carbs, but yes, I could cut down.

Mine improved when I cut way down on butter & used more olive oil - as did
all of my cholesterol levels. Don't know how much of a direct cause &
effect, but I figure less butter/more olive oil can't hurt at any rate.

Cathy


Cathy
>>
>> Also, the fasting glucose test fails to diagnose 70% of women and 48% of
>> men over 50, as compared to testing after meals with a glucose meter.
>
> I'm going to have to borrow my mother's meter and see where my blood sugar
> is after eating (she tests 2 hrs after meals).
>
>>
>> Folks are diabetic for many years before the fasting glucose starts to
>> rise.
>>
>> Your lipids are characteristic of metabolic syndrome.
>>
>> It's very easy to reverse by cutting out starches and replacing them with
>> colorful leafy stuff, fats, proteins, nuts, etc.
>>
> It's not the replacing but the cutting that hurts. I already eat lots of
> veggies, especially in the summer when I eat mostly from my gardent.
>
>> Higher animal protein consumption is also associated with higher bone
>> mass in the elderly.
>>
>
> I eat lots of animal protein, but I suppose that's compromised by the
> carbs.
>
>> Susan
>
>

"foggydoggy" <foggydoggy@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
news:5aCdi.105804$Y_.68764@read1.cgocable.net...
>
> "Peahen" <seelengehilfe@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:f56j2f$b5i$1@vegh.ks.cc.utah.edu...
>> Does anybody know how much calcium a body can absorb in one dose? My
>> bone scan came back -2.1, so I figure I'd better add a calcium supplement
>> to my diet.
>
> The body doesn't absorb more than 500 mg at a time, so take the 1200 mg in
> divided doses. I take 600 at lunch and in evening with dinner. Yeah, I
> know I'm not doing what I'm suggesting but I found that if I divided the
> doses 3-4X/day I end up forgetting 1-2 doses,so I figured it's in me at
> least and let my body absorb what it will.
>
> Calcium citrate is the form that's most easily absorbed.Make sure you have
> Vitamin D added to enhance absorption, along with magnesium.I take the
> SISU Cal/Mg 2:1 with calcium citrate 200 mg, Magnesium 150 mg and D2 200
> IU per tab, four tabs/day.
>
> Roseanne

Sorry, a typo. That was 300 mg of calcium not 200.

Roseanne
>

On Jun 18, 12:19 pm, Susan <neverm...@nomail.com> wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
>
>
>
>
>
> Peahen wrote:
> > Does anybody know how much calcium a body can absorb in one dose? My bone
> > scan came back -2.1, so I figure I'd better add a calcium supplement to my
> > diet.
>
> > I don't mind being 51; I like my earned wisdom (in most things). I don't
> > even mind my changing looks (much). I HATE what's happening to my
> > "innards." Six years ago my bone density was just dandy, my combined
> > cholestrol was in the low 100s (although the HDL was always too low), my
> > blood pressure ranged aroung 102/54 (give or take a few for each number), my
> > glucose and triglycerides were low, my weight ranged from 130-135, and only
> > a couple of inches pooched over my waistline (I did say I don't mind
> > "much").
>
> > Today, post-menopause, my cholestrol is 230 (still too low HDL), blood
> > pressure 139/84, triglycerides 300 (although the glucose is still low
> > enough -- 84), weight 151 with a 33 inch waistline and lots of extra pooch
> > over the waistline.
>
> > I need a change in lifestyle, incorporating bone-pounding, cardiovascular
> > exercise and lots of less fat in my diet, but I have always been abominably
> > lazy when it comes to activity (I called it "tired"). I never needed to
> > work at it before and got pretty complacent.
>
> > Wake up call long overdue.
>
> Your triglycerides are a pretty direct measure of how carby your diet
> is. If you cut out starch and eat more fat, they'll plummet,
> practically overnight. Not at all unimportant, since high TGL and low
> HDL are far more predictive of cardiovascular disease than LDL or total
> cholesterol is.
>
> Also, the fasting glucose test fails to diagnose 70% of women and 48% of
> men over 50, as compared to testing after meals with a glucose meter.
> .
>
> Higher animal protein consumption is also associated with higher bone
> mass in the elderly.

With respect, there's an opposing point of view about animal protein
consumption and bone density. Studies have shown that the body must
use calcium to counteract the acid condition created in the body by
animal protein--which can cause calcium depletion. In one study by
the dairy industry (subsequently suppressed) some women drank three 8
oz. glasses of milk a day, and others drank six glasses. The group
drinking more milk suffered bone loss during the study.
You mentioned the elderly, Susan; perhaps animal protein acts
differently on them. However, (I realize this is anecdotal), my 76
year old stepmom was always a big milk lover, and is drinking more
than ever "to build up her bones". Despite the fact that she's taking
Fosamax as well, her osteoporosis keeps getting worse.
I've seen this effect mentioned in several books about osteoporosis,
and have followed it with interest because I've been a vegetarian most
of my adult life (I eat eggs, no milk, a little cheese, occasional
fish). My bone density at age 52 was plus .9 despite my avoidance of
animal protein.
The Scandinavians consume the most dairy products, and they also have
a high osteoporosis rate. Osteoporosis is rare in Japan, where people
eat almost no dairy products and less meat than Americans.
By the way, I too am having the kind of deterioriations Peahen
mentioned. My HDL has gone from 80 down to 57 in the last 4 years
(I'm now almost 55), triglycerides have gone up, I've gained 10
pounds, and have grown an alarming pot belly.
One tip on the calcium--try biting down on it. If it's very hard to
chew up, it may not be dissolving and absorbing properly. I use a
pill crusher on mine.
To our health,
Les




>
> Susan- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

x-no-archive: yes


> With respect, there's an opposing point of view about animal protein
> consumption and bone density. Studies have shown that the body must
> use calcium to counteract the acid condition created in the body by
> animal protein--which can cause calcium depletion.

Yabbut, that is temporary and does not lead to bone loss. I'm not
concerned with POV so much as objective science. I've never seen a
solid conclusion, just an opinionated argument that it theoretically
could happen.

It doesn't.

In one study by
> the dairy industry (subsequently suppressed) some women drank three 8
> oz. glasses of milk a day, and others drank six glasses. The group
> drinking more milk suffered bone loss during the study.

Milk isn't animal protein. Meat is.

> You mentioned the elderly, Susan; perhaps animal protein acts
> differently on them. However, (I realize this is anecdotal), my 76
> year old stepmom was always a big milk lover, and is drinking more
> than ever "to build up her bones". Despite the fact that she's taking
> Fosamax as well, her osteoporosis keeps getting worse.

She should eat more meat and try to do as much weight bearing as she can.

> I've seen this effect mentioned in several books about osteoporosis,
> and have followed it with interest because I've been a vegetarian most
> of my adult life (I eat eggs, no milk, a little cheese, occasional
> fish). My bone density at age 52 was plus .9 despite my avoidance of
> animal protein.

A lot of it is genetics. I was on steroids for decades, and my bone
density is plus 2.3! My 85 y.o. mom is at the top of the charts.

But for the elderly with lower bone mass, animal protein has been shown
to improve mass.

> The Scandinavians consume the most dairy products, and they also have
> a high osteoporosis rate.

No sunlight. Same with Inuit, I believe.

Osteoporosis is rare in Japan, where people
> eat almost no dairy products and less meat than Americans.

Genes count for a lot.

> By the way, I too am having the kind of deterioriations Peahen
> mentioned. My HDL has gone from 80 down to 57 in the last 4 years
> (I'm now almost 55), triglycerides have gone up, I've gained 10
> pounds, and have grown an alarming pot belly.

Cutting starch will usually raise HDL and lower the belly fat. Insulin
sensitivity drops off precipitously after age 40, and, our sex hormones
are steroids that we have less of post meno. That explains a lot about
peri symptoms (and why the did me in so; I've had undiagnosed Cushing's
syndrome a long time).

> One tip on the calcium--try biting down on it. If it's very hard to
> chew up, it may not be dissolving and absorbing properly. I use a
> pill crusher on mine.
> To our health,

I take gel caps, occasionally; I eat dairy for most of my calcium.

Health to us all,

Susan

> x-no-archive: yes

Oops. Meant to share these, too:


http://www.jbmronline.org/doi/pdf/10...04?cookieSet=1



AND:

EDITORIAL
Am J Clin Nutr 2001;73:5-6. "Protein intake and bone health: the
influence of belief systems on the conduct of nutritional science"
Printed in USA. © 2001 American Society for Clinical Nutrition

Robert P Heaney

... study, cited extensively since its publication, contributed
to the widespread impression that protein is harmful to
bone. It is therefore appropriate that I take this opportunity to
revisit our original observations in the context of what is now
known about the calcium economy.

...In brief, if protein exerts a negative
effect, it is only under conditions of low calcium intake.

...A sometimes ignored feature of our study’s findings was a
positive correlation between calcium intake and calcium balance,
ie, higher calcium intakes offset the calciuric effects of
protein.

...Two randomized controlled trials showed that increased
protein intake dramatically improved outcomes after hip fracture
(3, 4), and subsequent work showed that protein supplements
reduce bone loss at the contralateral hip in patients with upper
femoral fracture (5, 6). The most likely explanation is a
protein-induced increase in insulin-like growth factor I (7), which is
known to be osteotrophic.

... In parallel with this more or less normal advance of the
science, a ferment in the larger society has arisen out of opposition
to the use of animal products. Although only a tiny proportion of
the general public or the nutritional science community holds
this view, the zeal of these groups and their eagerness to exploit
any evidence that suggests harmful effects of animal products
have had a disproportionate effect both on public consciousness
and on the agenda of nutritional science itself.

... That, coupled with the generally very robust skeletons of
our hominid forbears, makes it difficult to sustain a case, either
evidential or deductive, for overall skeletal harm related either to
protein intake or to animal protein. Indeed, the balance of the
evidence seems to indicate the opposite.

REFERENCES
1. Spencer H, Kramer L, Osis D. Do protein and phosphorus cause
calcium
loss? J Nutr 1988;118:657–60.

2. Heaney RP, Recker RR. Effects of nitrogen, phosphorus, and caffeine
on calcium balance in women. J Lab Clin Med 1982;99:46–55.

3. Delmi M, Rapin C-H, Bengoa J-M, Delmas PD, Vasey, Bonjour J-P.
Dietary supplementation in elderly patients with fractured neck of
the femur. Lancet 1990;335:1013–6.

4. Bastow MD, Rawlings J, Allison SP. Benefits of supplementary tube
feeding after fractured neck of femur. Br Med J 1983;287:1589–92.

5. Schürch M-A, Rizzoli R, Slosman D, Vadas L, Vergnaud P, Bonjour
J-P. Protein supplements increase serum insulin-like growth factor-I
levels and attenuate proximal femur bone loss in patients with
recent hip fracture. Ann Intern Med 1998;128:801–9.

6. Bonjour J-P, Schürch M-A, Rizzoli R. Nutritional aspects of hip
fractures. Bone 1996;18:139S–44S.

7. Ammann P, Bourrin S, Bonjour J-P, Meyer J-M, Rizzoli R. Protein
undernutrition-induced bone loss is associated with decreased IGF-I
levels and estrogen deficiency. J Bone Miner Res 2000;15:683–90.

8. Sellmeyer DE, Stone KL, Sebastian A, Cummings SR, for the Study
of Osteoporotic Fractures Research Group. A high ratio of dietary
animal to vegetable protein increases the rate of bone loss and the
risk of fracture in postmenopausal women. Am J Clin Nutr
2001;73:118–22.

9. Hannan MT, Tucker KL, Dawson-Hughes B, Cupples LA, Felson
DT, Kiel DP. Effect of dietary protein on bone loss in elderly men
and women. The Framingham Study. J Bone Miner Res 2000;15:
2504–12.

10. Cordain L, Brand-Miller J, Eaton SB, Mann N, Holt SHA, Speth JD.
Plant-animal subsistence ratios and macronutrient energy estimations
in worldwide hunter-gatherer diets. Am J Clin Nutr 2000;71:682–92.

11. Eaton B, Nelson DA. Calcium in evolutionary perspective. Am J
Clin Nutr 1991;54(suppl):281S–7S.

12. Richards MP, Pettitt PB, Trinkaus E, Smith FH, Paunovic M,
Kara-vanic I. Neanderthal diet at Vindija and Neanderthal predation:
the evidence from stable isotopes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
2000;97:7663–6.

13. Milton K. Hunter-gatherer diets—a different perspective. Am J Clin
Nutr 2000;71:665–7.

Susan <nevermind@nomail.com> wrote:

> x-no-archive: yes
>
>
> > With respect, there's an opposing point of view about animal protein
> > consumption and bone density. Studies have shown that the body must
> > use calcium to counteract the acid condition created in the body by
> > animal protein--which can cause calcium depletion.
>
> Yabbut, that is temporary and does not lead to bone loss. I'm not
> concerned with POV so much as objective science. I've never seen a
> solid conclusion, just an opinionated argument that it theoretically
> could happen.
>
> It doesn't.
>
> In one study by
> > the dairy industry (subsequently suppressed) some women drank three 8
> > oz. glasses of milk a day, and others drank six glasses. The group
> > drinking more milk suffered bone loss during the study.
>
> Milk isn't animal protein. Meat is.

Milk is an animal product that contains protein, so yes, it's animal
protein. What other kind of protein could it be?

> > You mentioned the elderly, Susan; perhaps animal protein acts
> > differently on them. However, (I realize this is anecdotal), my 76
> > year old stepmom was always a big milk lover, and is drinking more
> > than ever "to build up her bones". Despite the fact that she's taking
> > Fosamax as well, her osteoporosis keeps getting worse.
>
> She should eat more meat and try to do as much weight bearing as she can.
>
> > I've seen this effect mentioned in several books about osteoporosis,
> > and have followed it with interest because I've been a vegetarian most
> > of my adult life (I eat eggs, no milk, a little cheese, occasional
> > fish). My bone density at age 52 was plus .9 despite my avoidance of
> > animal protein.
>
> A lot of it is genetics. I was on steroids for decades, and my bone
> density is plus 2.3! My 85 y.o. mom is at the top of the charts.
>
> But for the elderly with lower bone mass, animal protein has been shown
> to improve mass.
>
> > The Scandinavians consume the most dairy products, and they also have
> > a high osteoporosis rate.
>
> No sunlight. Same with Inuit, I believe.

Well, that's not entirely true. You all are assuming that because we
have short winter days, we're all starved for sunlight. But during the
other half of the year, the sun is gone only for a few hours (where I
live, "night" lasts 5 hours now), and north of the Arctic circle there's
the midnight sun. Overcast weather does far more to starve us of
sunlight than living far north does.

The Scandinavians themselves are baffled by the osteoporosis issue: In
Norway, for example, the highest rate of osteoporosis in Norway is found
in their largest city, Oslo, not up north of the Arctic circle. The
difference may be in the amount of fish eaten. Folks up north live from
fishing, and so are far more inclined to eat fish rather than meat.

Some studies are now suggesting that the Inuits' osteoporosis problem
may actually be due to pollution. This has been found to be the case in
Greenland, and now they want to take a look at the Alaskan population.

> > Osteoporosis is rare in Japan, where people
> > eat almost no dairy products and less meat than Americans.

But a lot of fish. I'm thinking we don't know the whole story. Medical
traditions are different between Japan and the US/west, too, and there's
the issue of food traditions. The Japanese get their starch from rice;
Scandinavians from potatoes. Maybe that's a factor, too.

> Genes count for a lot.
>
> > By the way, I too am having the kind of deterioriations Peahen
> > mentioned. My HDL has gone from 80 down to 57 in the last 4 years
> > (I'm now almost 55), triglycerides have gone up, I've gained 10
> > pounds, and have grown an alarming pot belly.
>
> Cutting starch will usually raise HDL and lower the belly fat. Insulin
> sensitivity drops off precipitously after age 40, and, our sex hormones
> are steroids that we have less of post meno. That explains a lot about
> peri symptoms (and why the did me in so; I've had undiagnosed Cushing's
> syndrome a long time).
>
> > One tip on the calcium--try biting down on it. If it's very hard to
> > chew up, it may not be dissolving and absorbing properly. I use a
> > pill crusher on mine.
> > To our health,
>
> I take gel caps, occasionally; I eat dairy for most of my calcium.

I'm seeing conflicting reports on whether or not meat leeches calcium.
In some primitive societies studied, it doesn't, while studies on others
says it does.

> Health to us all,
>
> Susan


--
Keera in Norway * Think big. Shrink to fit.
http://home.online.no/~kafox/

x-no-archive: yes

Keera Ann Fox wrote:

> Milk is an animal product that contains protein, so yes, it's animal
> protein. What other kind of protein could it be?

I was referring to flesh, for clarity's sake.


> Well, that's not entirely true. You all are assuming that because we
> have short winter days, we're all starved for sunlight. But during the
> other half of the year, the sun is gone only for a few hours (where I
> live, "night" lasts 5 hours now), and north of the Arctic circle there's
> the midnight sun. Overcast weather does far more to starve us of
> sunlight than living far north does.

Relative to those in other latitudies, you are starved for sunlight,
hormonally speaking.

>
> The Scandinavians themselves are baffled by the osteoporosis issue: In
> Norway, for example, the highest rate of osteoporosis in Norway is found
> in their largest city, Oslo, not up north of the Arctic circle. The
> difference may be in the amount of fish eaten. Folks up north live from
> fishing, and so are far more inclined to eat fish rather than meat.
>
> Some studies are now suggesting that the Inuits' osteoporosis problem
> may actually be due to pollution. This has been found to be the case in
> Greenland, and now they want to take a look at the Alaskan population.

I doubt it's pollution at all, but I have not closely examined it. It's
very clear from vit. D research that there's a problem with vit D
production and stores in certain locations and lifestyles.

[snip]

> I'm seeing conflicting reports on whether or not meat leeches calcium.
> In some primitive societies studied, it doesn't, while studies on others
> says it does.

Not reports, opinions. No reports have found bone mass reduction in
reality, from meat eating, just speculation.

Susan

Susan <nevermind@nomail.com> wrote:

> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Keera Ann Fox wrote:
>
>
> [snip]
>
> > I'm seeing conflicting reports on whether or not meat leeches calcium.
> > In some primitive societies studied, it doesn't, while studies on others
> > says it does.
>
> Not reports, opinions. No reports have found bone mass reduction in
> reality, from meat eating, just speculation.
>

In fact the most recent study says meat doesn't do this. Low carb came
out ahead of low fat in almost all categories.

Susan <nevermind@nomail.com> wrote:

> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Keera Ann Fox wrote:
>
> > Milk is an animal product that contains protein, so yes, it's animal
> > protein. What other kind of protein could it be?
>
> I was referring to flesh, for clarity's sake.
>
>
> > Well, that's not entirely true. You all are assuming that because we
> > have short winter days, we're all starved for sunlight. But during the
> > other half of the year, the sun is gone only for a few hours (where I
> > live, "night" lasts 5 hours now), and north of the Arctic circle there's
> > the midnight sun. Overcast weather does far more to starve us of
> > sunlight than living far north does.
>
> Relative to those in other latitudies, you are starved for sunlight,
> hormonally speaking.

Am I now. You might want to read what I wrote above one more time. And
you can add to that the fact that Scandinavians nowadays have both the
time and money to go south for the winter and do so. In fact,
Scandinavians spend so much time in the sun that they've acquired a high
risk for skin cancer. Yes, you read that right.

There is currently a new study going on at the University of Tromsø,
trying once again to solve the baffling issue of osteoporosis. If the
people who get it don't know why yet, how did you get to be such an
expert on the matter?

> > I'm seeing conflicting reports on whether or not meat leeches calcium.
> > In some primitive societies studied, it doesn't, while studies on others
> > says it does.
>
> Not reports, opinions.

You don't know what I've read.

> No reports have found bone mass reduction in
> reality, from meat eating, just speculation.

--
Keera in Norway * Think big. Shrink to fit.
http://home.online.no/~kafox/

x-no-archive: yes

Keera Ann Fox wrote:

> Am I now. You might want to read what I wrote above one more time. And
> you can add to that the fact that Scandinavians nowadays have both the
> time and money to go south for the winter and do so. In fact,
> Scandinavians spend so much time in the sun that they've acquired a high
> risk for skin cancer. Yes, you read that right.

The higher risk of skin cancer appears to be highly correlated with
lower levels of vit. D, too. Not having year round exposure to strong
sunlight (as opposed to binging on cancer inducing amounts of it on
vacation) is associated with deficiency. Kind of like the difference
between the benefits of half a glass of red wine nightly and drinking an
entire case weekly.

>
> There is currently a new study going on at the University of Tromsø,
> trying once again to solve the baffling issue of osteoporosis. If the
> people who get it don't know why yet, how did you get to be such an
> expert on the matter?

Is it your position that the academic scientific authorities usually get
it right? As with HRT, Rezulin, LymeRix, thalidomide, SIDS, Vioxx, etc...?

Mine is the opposite. I have no ego involved in proving a particular
theory correct; I just have my life and health on the line, thanks to
the damage done to me by docs and researchers at the most prestigious
academic facilities in NYC. Once you realize just how satisfied they
are with profound ignorance and well ingrained prejudice, you have to
learn more than they bother to.

>
>
>>>I'm seeing conflicting reports on whether or not meat leeches calcium.
>>>In some primitive societies studied, it doesn't, while studies on others
>>>says it does.
>>
>>Not reports, opinions.
>
>
> You don't know what I've read.

I know what's in the literature. I've searched it high and low for over
a decade on this and the related topics.

If you produce some literature demonstrating bone damage by animal
proteins conclusively, I'll be very interested in reading it. If it says
something like "may cause" or "may lead to..." it's of no use.

Susan <nevermind@nomail.com> wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes

> Keera Ann Fox wrote:

>>>>I'm seeing conflicting reports on whether or not meat leeches calcium.
>>>>In some primitive societies studied, it doesn't, while studies on others
>>>>says it does.
>>>
>>>Not reports, opinions.
>>
>>
>> You don't know what I've read.

> I know what's in the literature. I've searched it high and low for over
> a decade on this and the related topics.

> If you produce some literature demonstrating bone damage by animal
> proteins conclusively, I'll be very interested in reading it. If it says
> something like "may cause" or "may lead to..." it's of no use.

What causes a lot of the research ambiguity is that the body uses the
skeleton as a useful calcium store and often borrows from it when
calcium is needed, such as in the digestion of meat. In general these
are temporary borrowings which are soon repaid. So they don't -- in
general -- cause permanent calcium loss from the bones. However, some
researchers will report them simply as having caused calcium
loss. Others will make the speculation that this could lead to long
term bone calcium loss. Which these temporary borrowings will if
something goes wrong with the paying back process, such as some
pathological damage to it, some dietary deficiency, etc..

The point is that there's not necessarily anything bad about these
temporary calcium borrowings from the skeleton. But if something goes
wrong with the payback mechanism then avoiding the borrowing will slow
the depletion of calcium, which could lead some people to say that the
borrowing (such as in meat digestion) was "causing" the calcium loss.

You have to be very careful with the concept of "cause". An
intervention which stops something happening has not necessarily
focussed on the real culprit, just an accessory.

--
Chris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]