Since chat introduced us to cronometer.com I've been keeping track of what I eat each day. On all days, I get between 25% - 50% of the recommended daily allowance, no more.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

I once heard that those countries with the greatest prevalence of osteoporosis are also the countries that consume the greatest amounts of calcium.

I think you meant that the countries with the greatest consumption of DAIRY have osteoporosis.

Supposedly there's an African tribe called the Bantus who only consume 200 mg. (versus the 1000 mg. suggested by the "experts" and they don't have osteoporosis. They do not consume dairy products, either. So the theory is that their plant consumption, coupled with lack of acidic foods like dairy (which would cause the body to excrete calcium) is responsible for their strong bones.

When it comes to osteoporosis there are many more factors that meat/dairy consumption and even calcium intake. The experts always recommend calcium but silica is actually far more important when it comes to bone health in my opinion and without silica, calcium won't be able to be uptaken by the bone matrix.

Maintaining stomach acid levels is one of the best things we can do since our levels naturally lower as we age.

[www.vegankingdom.co.uk]

I got side tracked with the post above on osteoporosis lol, what i meant to say was that is quite low for calcium intake and you will probably run into problems long term.

I would recommend increasing your calcium intake with what foods will depend if you are raw, vegan, not vegan etc, so ill leave that up to you.

[www.vegankingdom.co.uk]

I'm curious to learn about this subject too. For now I still take the calcium supplements my Doc recommended years ago. But I still can't help but suspect that a vegan wouldn't have the same calcium requirements as an omnivore. It makes me wonder if there are other nutritional requirements that are different for vegans. John Rose, I'd love to hear your opinion.

What I had meant to say earlier is that the RDA seems to throw everyone off. Their recommendation of protein grams per day was (I later learned) for those who were chronically ill. So they used that number as a catch-all.

The truth is that just like calories, milligrams may not be equal. Do you take crushed rock supplements and think it's bio-available? It may be 1000 mg. per tablet, but is the body absorbing it? Or worse yet, is the body simply collecting inorganic minerals like calcium and iron and it's wreaking damage internally?

Actually, banana who, some years ago, I listened to a lecture by Dr. Hans Diehl, an advocate of a vegan diet who had worked with Nathan Pritikin for some time in Santa Barbara, CA and he said calcium, not dairy, however I have no idea where he got this from. It was just a passing comment that caught my attention.

powerlifer, on most days I am as close to 100% raw as I can be. About the only things I use that is not totally raw is olive oil and even that is very, very seldom. Right now, I found a great deal on cold pressed so I stocked up. The other thing is about a tablespoon of nutritional yeast a day. Otherwise, I'm entirely raw.

I consume large amounts of cabbage (one head of cabbage daily), carrots, cauliflower, brocolli, peppers, cucumbers, tomatos, melons of all sorts, grapes, cherries, blueberries, goji berries, avocados, and once in a while, I eat a few nuts. I'm certainly eating lots every day but my percentage of calcium when compared to the RDA is low.

And I think you're right banana who, what you take in and what your body uses may be very different. I would prefer to take 300 mg. of calcium in raw food than 1000 mg. in a tablet. I don't really know how these two compare but it seems logical that the body will make better use naturally-present calcium.

I too would like to hear what your thoughts are on this John Rose, if you have the time.

LATE ENTRY: I think I just figured where the problem is coming in; I'm miscalculating. I have been entering what I am eating according to estimated cups but I just went to cronometer.com and put quantity in by grams and I see I am grossly underestimating. I am not probably nearly as low as I had thought. I will have to weigh out what I am eating for a few days to get a better handle on it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/20/2012 01:20AM by Raw4ever.

Yes, my mother takes high dosage calcium carbonate, or at least she use to. In addition to drinking several glasses of milk each day. All believing that this would help keep her bones healthy. I personally felt very scared of her doing that, and taking conventional nutritional ideas without a second thought.

My mother in law the same thing. She fractured a bone, and has been taking calcium carbonate and vitamin D believing that would heal her bone. Well it hasn't happened. I got her some greens concentrate to help her heal, but she wasn't interested in that at all because it didn't contain high concentrations of elemental calcium or dairy. Thus is her advice from her nutritionist daughter, and the MD who is the other daughter. I kind of expected that it might not work, but even my suggestion might not have worked either. But I had the idea and knowledge that perhaps there was more too it than just calcium.

Carbonate is not a good form of supplemental calcium, citrate is a better choice for absorption. But yeah you are right Mislu, there is much more to bone health than calcium alone.

The bioavailability of calcium in certain foods is higher than others. Being slightly under the RDA of calcium is likely to cause little issue pending your overall diet is healthy. But 50% or below the RDA i would suspect you will run into problems long term.

Not that im recommending you supplement either as im not a big fan of calcium supplements unless needed.

[www.vegankingdom.co.uk]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/20/2012 08:40AM by powerlifer.

Well crap! I guess I can chuck my calcium supplements. Now, what to replace them with. I read that blackstrap molasses has a good bit of calcium - 400 mg per 2 Tablespoons. Does anyone know how easily calcium is absorbed from molasses?

Also - does the FDA take into account the low absorbtion rate of such nutrients when they determine the RDA? Does anyone know how they come up with those numbers? (I do mean other than being bribed by Monsanto and the Nat'l Dairy Association)

Raw curious, I hate to be crude but maybe they just pulled it out of their butts? I mean, do cows check their calcium levels? They just eat grass and do fine. I am paraphrasing Harvey Diamond. I recommend his "Fit for Life II" where he discusses such issues.

When we consider the osteoporosis aspect of all this, if acidic diets leech calcium from bones, then if one were eating a highly alkaline diet, wouldn't it stand to reason that their calcium needs would be much lower than the average SAD eater? Added to that the fact that they are consuming so much plant-based foods with bio-available calcium!

Mislu, kidney stones would be a definite danger. Even mainstream docs are getting on that band wagon--most likely due to how many people are taking crushed rock to build their bones...

Raw-curious,
Molasses? Its the other end of processing sugar, where the minerals and some vitamins go. In conventional models of nutrition I suppose is good, if your not diabetic, as it still causes a spike in insulin. But as far as I know boiling is involved in the making of molasses. I guess the only good part is the minerals, if your going to have processed sugar I suppose this would be the one to have, or blond sugar.

Before you toss the calcium supplements, may I ask what are they? They could possibly be useful in the garden if you have one. If its calcium carbonate it might have some usefulness in controling acid attacks if you have friends or relatives who aren't raw, and have trouble with gerd etc...

Banana who,
WHOA...thats right kidney stones. Man, forgot about that. She has been having pains in the lower back.

There are so many areas where inorganic calcium collects. Even cataracts may be due to crystals!

B who,
There is a product which claims it removes mineral deposits in the body. Its monoatomic minerals, broken down into such small particles that they enter directly into the cell. They are actually elemental, as in small metal particles suspended in water or alcohol, something like that. Its probably true, but even if it does disperse deposits and stones etc...can they do harm in other ways? I saw that a few years back and thought I would like to save up and buy the series of various elements your supposed to take. But then I said to myself...wait a second!

Part of the marketing said that it was developed by a particular organization which sounded so impressive, but I wouldn't say that this organization is particularly known for peace, love, health etc....

Mislu, isn't that also true of distilled water? In any case, perhaps juice feasting would dissolve the crystals and remove them from the body. Or even just going 100% raw (even for a short time).

B Who,
Yes, Penta produces ultra pure water and its claims that their product dissolves stones. I am not sure if she really has stones. But all the suggestions are out, she would not want to try any of the above suggestions. Shes extremely set in her ways, and I am actually the last person she would listen to for any health advice. Which is rather frustrating at times, but I have just totally given up. She just thinks that these things happen for mysterious reasons, or that shes just getting old and there isn't anything she could do to improve anything. Other than go see a conventional doctor, get xrays and have surgery if necessary. I find strange, she would rather investigate taking meds or surgery as a first and only course of action, rather than even consider any other possibilities.

B who,
I suppose ultimately I cannot tell anyone what to do, but I certainly wish she could even consider a little wider ranger of possibilites. I shouldn't be critical as shes 83, and not very educated, highly religious traditional. If anything is something shes not familiar with in any aspect of life its immediately suspect, and very, very likely to be rejected. As far as she is concerned only western nutritional and medical ideals are the only reality, per her two daughers. One is a great doctor, the other...well, I don't think shes such a great nutritionist, but both are hardcore in what they have been taught.

However, with great patience, there are break throughs. Ones that occur sometimes suddenly. Like I left my goldfish alone for about 3 weeks to take care of herself in her tank when I went on vacation. The nutritionist heard that and *gasp* I am going to find her dead floating in the tank when I get back. Actually, quite the opposite! When I got back she had actually doubled the size of her fins! and looked the healthiest I have ever seen her. She was actually shocked that my goldish lived to be 7 years old. All the ones she ever kept were just a few months. But unfortunately, very short lived impressions, as she still makes the same suggestions as usual for nutrition, apparently these things only apply to pets and not people.

Like i say though there is much more to bone health and osteoporosis than just calcium alone. It is actually the high level of phosphorus rather than the acidity which causes the bone loss from high meat consumption. The body compensates by releasing parathyroid hormone which can break down bone tissue in order to raise calcium levels.

There are so many different factors that can lead to osteoporosis such as lack of exercise, lack of vitamin D and other important bone nutrients such as calcium and silica, high stress, low stomach acid causing impaired nutrient absorption, high phosphorus intake, lack of intestinal flora and some medications are the most common causes and factors.

In my opinion i would say the RDA is correct for calcium. Also calcium carbonate is a poor supplemental form of calcium and will neutralize stomach acid which is not good for bone health like i say. Calcium Citrate is a better acidified form of calcium.

[www.vegankingdom.co.uk]



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 08/21/2012 08:45AM by powerlifer.

Powerlifter,
Thats a lot to balance. At times I am actually more comfortable with simple answers compared to the more complete answer, although probably more real, I fear would cause additional stress and worry. The only criticism I have of RDA is that its so recent in developement and concept. Humans have lived so long without trying to meet an ideal amount printed on paper. I am sure results varied, but I am sure other concerns overshaddowed RDA. Wild animals I am sure know nothing of RDA.

The way i look at it though is with a varied balanced lifestyle most of the above is pretty easy to balance and happens naturally.

Things become more easily unbalanced with restrictive diets which is when care needs to be taken that you are not missing a certain nutrient or excessively over-consuming one type of food that could be problematic.

The RDA is ok as a guide. Aslong as you are eating a varied diet and enough calories you mostly probably would never need to worry about RDA's or much about nutrition in general.

Supporting digestive health is very important since stomach acid levels lower naturally as we age.

[www.vegankingdom.co.uk]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/21/2012 12:10PM by powerlifer.

Most of you probably know about the Garden of Life products, they have what I think is one of the best calciums available and tested. It comes with all the co-factors needed and is in a low dose. We don't need as much as the government would have you believe just quality and absorbtion are what's important. Of coarse alot of us have impared digestine. An autopsy was done on a SAD american boy at 11 or 13 or somthing and most of his dig. tract was calcified, speculation is it's from drinking milk. This makes it hard to digest anything with a condition like this.

calcification can happen because of low K2. I think I read once that you get more calcium on the bones with a low calcium diet + weight training, than with a high calcium diet and no training. So calcium intake alone is not the whole thing.

check out the effect of carnitine on bone mass. It appears calcium is not everything

[en.wikipedia.org]


In the course of human aging, carnitine concentration in cells diminishes, affecting fatty acid metabolism in various tissues. Particularly adversely affected are bones, which require continuous reconstructive and metabolic functions of osteoblasts for maintenance of bone mass.

There is a close correlation between changes in plasma levels of osteocalcin and osteoblast activity and a reduction in osteocalcin plasma levels is an indicator of reduced osteoblast activity,[7] which appears to underlie osteoporosis in elderly subjects and in postmenopausal women. Administration of a carnitine mixture or propionyl-L-carnitine is capable of increasing serum osteocalcin concentrations of animals thus treated, whereas serum osteocalcin levels tend to decrease with age in control animals.[8]

Powerlifer, phosphorus is an acidic mineral, no? And however it comes to pass, the fact that calcium is being leached from the bones due to either an acidic environment or parathyroid hormone (and could it be that the release of this hormone creates...acidity? Must be or else why would it try and take alkaline calcium to balance things?) is really semantics at the end of the day, is it not? The point is calcium and whether it is necessary to supplement. As to calcium citrate, is that not calcium carbonate with citric acid attached? Rocks and Vitamin C?

Pending you're diet is good there is little reason to supplement calcium in my opinion, like i say as we age i believe maintaining stomach acid levels to be of more importance to start.

Calcium citrate is the calcium salt of citric acid and is an acidified type of calcium which is better absorbed. Plus it won't neutralize your stomach acid like many other types of calcium supplements such as the carbonate i mentioned above.

Calcium is only one factor in bone formation like i say, i wouldn't give it much more importance than many other factors mentioned above such as exercise and other nutrients such as silica.

[www.vegankingdom.co.uk]



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/25/2012 08:16AM by powerlifer.

Powerlifer, I went to Wikipedia and when I clicked on calcium salt it gave a list of INORGANIC minerals. LOL.

In any case, you are right about calcium not be the end all, be all. What about magnesium? Vitamin D?

But I still am convinced that calcium, even calcium citrate, would do more harm than good. No personal experience; just a hunch.

Yeah these inorganic forms of minerals must be converted into an absorbable form by the body, using a protein molecule as a transporter. Which is why i prefer food or herbal sources of vitamins and minerals in most cases. Saying that if someone has low Calcium then a Calcium Citrate supplement would likely be beneficial.

Yeah silica, magnesium, vitamin D, boron, vitamin C, sulfur, zinc, copper, all fat soluble vitamins i.e A, D, E, K have a role in bone formation as do EFA's(Essential fatty acids).

If someone had normal levels of calcium then yeah i would agree that they probably wouldn't be beneficial. In the case of the OP who was only averaging around 25-50% of the RDA they may be of use.

Green leafy vegetables, seaweeds and various wild weeds such as nettle are good calcium sources. Silica is the most important bone nutrient in my opinion and the 3 foods i mentioned above are also good sources of silica.

[www.vegankingdom.co.uk]



Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 08/25/2012 08:16PM by powerlifer.

That's interesting about silica. I knew it was good for hair and nails...I wonder if cukes are then better than we thought. Interestingly, they are considered low in nutrients, even though they have silica.

Yeah silica is a very important nutrient when it comes to connective tissue, ligaments, skin, bone, hair and nail health.

Silica is largely dependant on acid for absorption so keeping stomach acid levels maintained is a good idea as our levels naturally lower as we age.

[www.vegankingdom.co.uk]