W.A. Price, and calcium levels

[Guest guest]

Hi Suze,

You may be correct. I think I read somewhere that RDA's were not even

established until sometime in the 1930's. I will have to hunt further.

----->hey sheila,

according to n Nestle in " Food Politics " the National Academy of

Sciences issued their first RDA in 1941, although it only covered 8

nutrients as well as energy recommendations. (today they include 32

nutrients.) from 1943 on, they revised it every 5-10 years. IIRC, Price

tested the Swiss food over a period of years during the 1930s.(this was the

first group he studied.) NAPD was first published in 1939. So he probably

did all of his testing in the 30's starting with the Swiss, and published

the first edition of NAPD before the first RDA was issued. that would

further suggest that he was comparing typical diets, not RDA.

>>>Do you know how much calcium the typical American diet had when Price

did his research?

---->no.

>>>>I remember reading in Price's book, that people who lived in high

mountain areas, who drank the water from the mountain streams, and

the native island people who ate a lot of seafood got the necessarey

amounts of calcium for good health. I assume other natives got there

minerals from the milk , meat, animal fats and anything else they ate

which was connected to the rich soils of their homelands. I simply

want to know how much calcium and other minerals they ate.

-------->also bone broths. i imagine the different groups' Ca intake varied

and i'd really like to know more about price's statement that on average

they consumed 4 times the calcium than those on the SAD of his time. i mean,

i wonder exactly how he determined this and how accurate it is? how accurate

was the testing equipment he used? etc. i think it's pretty clear that the

groups' he studied ate much more nutrient-dense foods than Western diets

that relied heavily on white flour, white sugar, veggie oils and canned

goods. in fact, i recall him stating in NAPD that the typical american diet

at that time was 25% sugar. so 25% of what could've been nutrient-dense

foods was 'displaced' with this nutrient-deficient 'food.' so if it was

simply a matter of comparing diets high in these refined 'devitalized' foods

to diets high in nutrient-dense traditional foods, then it's a no-brainer

that the latter would be much higher in various nutrients. but that seems

too simple to me...which is why i'd like to know more about exactly what he

was testing and comparing.

Suze Fisher

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

>>>Hi Suze,

Here are the interesting results I found on levels of Mg in:

1909 intake was 408mg/day

1949 intake was 388mg/day

1985 intake was 228mg/day

------>sheila, do you know how these levels were determined? was food

tested? how did the researchers decide which foods to test?

>>>>Processing of foods is mainly blamed for the decline in magnesium

levels.

If it is true then the calcium ratio to Mg should be at least double

this would put calcium at around 800 mg with magnesium at 400 mg.

Isn't this less than the maximum dose of either mineral recommended

for an adult today?

----->i found the UL (upper level [max]) recommendations on the NRC website:

http://zoom.nap.edu/nap-cgi/rezoom.cgi?isbn=0309071836 & page=284

if " g/d " = grams/day, then for adults 19-70 ya, it's 2.5 grams/day. so the

answer would be 'yes' it's less than the *max* 'recommended' today. but this

is supposed to be the maximum *tolerable* limit - i'm not sure if it is

actually " recommended " per se.

[Guest guest]

I have been taking mega doses of magnesium to control pain, and have done a

bit more research lately.

Seems the thinking on magnesium is changing. It has been found that

unopposed calcium causes calcification, i.e. arthritis, wrinkles, etc.

While magnesium keeps the calcium in check.

There is a lot of new information on all this, and I have found that most

agree that our ratios have been off. Most recommend 4 parts mag to 3 parts

cal.

It sure has turned my life around!

Kat

http://www.katking.com

----- Original Message -----

From: " h2ocolor1937 " <h2ocolor@...>

< >

Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 9:30 PM

Subject: Re: W.A. Price, and calcium levels

> Hi Suze,

>

> Here are the interesting results I found on levels of Mg in:

> 1909 intake was 408mg/day

> 1949 intake was 388mg/day

> 1985 intake was 228mg/day

>

> Processing of foods is mainly blamed for the decline in magnesium

> levels.

> If it is true then the calcium ratio to Mg should be at least double

> this would put calcium at around 800 mg with magnesium at 400 mg.

> Isn't this less than the maximum dose of either mineral recommended

> for an adult today?

> Sheila

>

>

> > >>>>>Hi Everyone,

> > There has been a posting of many messages about calcium on the

> > traditional nutrition message board at Weston A. Price Org. They got

> > me to thinking about what Price said about the native people he

> > studied having 4 times the minerals of the standard RDA in the

> > 1930's. The trouble is I can not find out what the RDA was back

> then.

> > Does any one have those statictics on file?

> >

> >

> > ----------->sheila, maybe my memory is failing me, but i thought

> price found

> > that the average traditional/primitive diet had 4 times the calcium

> than the

> > typical Western *diet* of his time (which was heavy in refined

> flour, sugar,

> > canned goods and vegetable oils. not that it had 4 times the *RDA.*

> i

> > thought i had rechecked NAPD at some point to confirm this. but

> again, maybe

> > my memory is failing me...

> >

> >

> > Suze Fisher

> > Web Design & Development

> > http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

> > mailto:s.fisher22@v...

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> Hi Suze,

>

> Here are the interesting results I found on levels of Mg in:

> 1909 intake was 408mg/day

> 1949 intake was 388mg/day

> 1985 intake was 228mg/day

>

> Processing of foods is mainly blamed for the decline in magnesium

> levels.

> If it is true then the calcium ratio to Mg should be at least double

> this would put calcium at around 800 mg with magnesium at 400 mg.

> Isn't this less than the maximum dose of either mineral recommended

> for an adult today?

> Sheila

I'm guessing that if your intake of all nutrients is optimal that your

requirement for calcium would not be as high as the RDA, which has risen in

recent years, if I remember correctly - probably because the typical diet is

not optimal in nutrients, and the RDA for some nutrients is too low for

optimal nutrition. Coming up with the RDA's is complex and even

controversial, because of the interplay of all the nutrients.

Kris

[Guest guest]

-------->also bone broths. i imagine the different groups' Ca intake varied

> and i'd really like to know more about price's statement that on average

> they consumed 4 times the calcium than those on the SAD of his time. i

mean,

> i wonder exactly how he determined this and how accurate it is? how

accurate

> was the testing equipment he used? etc. i think it's pretty clear that the

> groups' he studied ate much more nutrient-dense foods than Western diets

> that relied heavily on white flour, white sugar, veggie oils and canned

> goods. in fact, i recall him stating in NAPD that the typical american

diet

> at that time was 25% sugar. so 25% of what could've been nutrient-dense

> foods was 'displaced' with this nutrient-deficient 'food.' so if it was

> simply a matter of comparing diets high in these refined 'devitalized'

foods

> to diets high in nutrient-dense traditional foods, then it's a no-brainer

> that the latter would be much higher in various nutrients. but that seems

> too simple to me...which is why i'd like to know more about exactly what

he

> was testing and comparing.

Suze,

Doesn't the Price Pottenger Foundation have all his records. Maybe someone

there would know what he considered a typical western diet of refined foods.

When I read his book it did occcur to me that the reason he got such high

comparison figures for nutrients was because the typical Western diet he was

using for comparison was so poor at that time. We would probably be

appalled if we say a typical daily menu in black and white.

Kris

[Guest guest]

Hi Suze,

I read about the levels of magnesium in an article at the web site

Kat mentioned, www.mgwater.com. The name of the article is " violence

Prevention through Magnesium-Rich Water " . I'm sorry I don't know how

the levels or magnesium were determined.

If you are interested in the effects of magnesium you might also want

to check out zinc.

Magnesium has no known inhibitors, but zinc is far less easily

bioavailable. Iron, excess calcium and deficiency of phosperous all

inhibit zinc. Since bones need zinc as well as calcium to be strong,

I would like to know the balance needed, and the best way to achieve

that balance, inorder to keep oteoarthritis at bay.

Price who admired the strong teeth and fine wide dental palettes of

native people knew were not taking calcium suppelments. This is way I

am trying to compare their diets with the SAD diet of Price's day.

Actually if I think back to when I was a child I guess I can get a

fair picture of the foods that were eaten in the 40's and 50's. I get

horrified when I think about that diet. Soda pop, ice cream, potato

chips, margarine(during WW 2), pasturized dairy, Velvetta cheese,

macarone dinners from a box, sugar cubes and candy, white bread, head

lettice, jelly and jam, and kool aid. Sickening is the word for it.

No wonder I had so many cavities as a child. I'm lucky I wasn't

sicker. Good grief! And to think that my dad was a doctor. He was

terribly ignorant about nutrition. Well, nothing new about that!

Sheila

> >>>Hi Suze,

>

> Here are the interesting results I found on levels of Mg in:

> 1909 intake was 408mg/day

> 1949 intake was 388mg/day

> 1985 intake was 228mg/day

>

>

>

> ------>sheila, do you know how these levels were determined? was

food

> tested? how did the researchers decide which foods to test?

>

> >>>>Processing of foods is mainly blamed for the decline in

magnesium

> levels.

> If it is true then the calcium ratio to Mg should be at least double

> this would put calcium at around 800 mg with magnesium at 400 mg.

> Isn't this less than the maximum dose of either mineral recommended

> for an adult today?

>

>

> ----->i found the UL (upper level [max]) recommendations on the NRC

website:

> http://zoom.nap.edu/nap-cgi/rezoom.cgi?isbn=0309071836 & page=284

>

> if " g/d " = grams/day, then for adults 19-70 ya, it's 2.5 grams/day.

so the

> answer would be 'yes' it's less than the *max* 'recommended' today.

but this

> is supposed to be the maximum *tolerable* limit - i'm not sure if

it is

> actually " recommended " per se.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/20/02 12:29:45 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

h2ocolor@... writes:

> Soda pop, ice cream, potato

> chips, margarine(during WW 2), pasturized dairy, Velvetta cheese,

> macarone dinners from a box, sugar cubes and candy, white bread, head

> lettice, jelly and jam, and kool aid.

Sounds similar to today's diet only people are more conscious about eating

vegetables and fruit now. But most families, at least in my experience,

don't eat breakfast together, so their kids end up having pop tarts or boxed

cereal or something, and only something _remotely_ healthy like eggs or some

kind of meat on the weekends probably. My best friend's sister eats brownies

and ice cream for breakfast. Everyone I know from the lower-income side grew

up on boxed macaroni and cheese. Schools are continuously pushing to lower

the fat of school lunches. They don't even carry whole milk if you want it

at schools, and they are more and more cutting the hamburgers with soy. The

school food is so gross anyway that a lot of folks will take one of their

peanut butter and jelly sandwiches (on white bread of course) instead of the

real food, or even more kids who go to school with lunch money instead of a

reduced-cost or free lunch card will just by snack food. When I was in high

school all I ate was salad and rolls (white bread again, of course, and

mostly iceberg lettuce in the salad) and nachos if I could afford them cause

everything else was gross. And of course there are the ubiquitous soda

machines in the hallways . . .

I think that with greater health consciousness people are more sure to eat

fruits and veggies and three glasses of milk a day, etc, and the white flour

is enriched, which does make it a healthfood, but makes overt deficiency of

those vitamins less likely,etc, but especially in the younger generation I

think kids diets are mostly made up of trans fats, sugar, and white flour,

especially breakfast. And most people don't like drinking water, which

leaves only more sugar as an alternative...

Chris

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of

them make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense

compassion, which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to

bear the sight of the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature.

Thus they pray ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the

truth, and for those who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian