Re: More on the WUSTL Study

[Guest guest]

>>> Am I the only person on the planet who believes his diet is

deficient in Ca and Zn?

Rodney, are you using the US RDA's? You may want to compare them to

the WHO recommendation as they differ alot from the US in these 2

nutrients (and protein). For Zinc, WHO ranges from 4-14 for an

adult male. For Calcium, it used to be around 500 but now is

around 700 for non USA, Canada and N Europe male adults. You may

find it fascinating to read the documents below, especially the

calcium one, to see why there is such a discrepency in the

recommendations and why, if you are living a very healthy diet, the

WHO recommendations are more applicable. So, you may actually have a

more nutrient adequate diet than you think.

Also, while there is no way of quantifying this, our best source of

Vit D is internal synthesis from sunlight.

WHO on Zinc..

ftp://ftp.fao.org/es/esn/nutrition/Vitrni/pdf/CHAPTER16.pdf

WHO on Calcium

ftp://ftp.fao.org/es/esn/nutrition/Vitrni/pdf/CHAPTER11.pdf

Jeff

[Guest guest]

I would think that depends on your definition of " adequate " . I use

the RDI. I'm sure we all have many substances ingested that are far

away from being " optimal " , however that is defined.

But even when I supplement with whole-food nutrition to reach the

majority of the RDI levels every day, I'm still " inadequate " in

Magnesium, Copper, Vitamin D, Vitamin C and Potassium. This is

primarily a result of my restricted food choices, except for Vitamin

C where I see food choices being extremely poor.

Logan

--- In , " Rodney " <perspect1111@y...> >

Am I the only person on the planet who believes his diet is deficient

> in Ca and Zn? While I do not seem to have a vitamin D deficiency

the

> only reason is that I eat fish pretty much every day - not common I

> would have thought.

>

> When people check the adequacy of their nutrient intakes does

almost

> everyone find they are consuming enough of these three substances?

> Am I the only exception? If I am not the only exception then why

> were none of the WUSTL subjects supplementing for these?

[Guest guest]

> I would think that depends on your definition of " adequate " . I use

> the RDI. I'm sure we all have many substances ingested that are

far

> away from being " optimal " , however that is defined.

>

> But even when I supplement with whole-food nutrition to reach the

> majority of the RDI levels every day, I'm still " inadequate " in

> Magnesium, Copper, Vitamin D, Vitamin C and Potassium. This is

> primarily a result of my restricted food choices, except for

Vitamin

> C where I see food choices being extremely poor.

>

> Logan

>

> --- In , " Rodney " <perspect1111@y...>

>

> Am I the only person on the planet who believes his diet is

deficient

> > in Ca and Zn? While I do not seem to have a vitamin D deficiency

> the

> > only reason is that I eat fish pretty much every day - not common

I

> > would have thought.

> >

> > When people check the adequacy of their nutrient intakes does

> almost

> > everyone find they are consuming enough of these three

substances?

> > Am I the only exception? If I am not the only exception then why

> > were none of the WUSTL subjects supplementing for these?

As a WUSTL subject who does indeed supplement, I personally think it

is not " safe " to just get the RDAs. This is the level at which

disease is avoided, and not necessarily close to optimal. I try to

get the RDA or better from whole, natural foods alone, but am

consistently low in iron, folate, calcium and magnesium. I supplement

for all these and include a B complex, since these are generally okay

to oversupply and I think I need more than the RDA of one or more of

them. I also take a Yasoo Health 400/400 E complex, and usually get

at least an additional 500mg of Ester C, more when I am stressed or

exposed to germs. My calcium supplement is Bone-Up, which has related

minerals and Vitamin D. I only take 2/3 the RDA of the

calcium/mineral supplement, because you do not want to oversupplement

the minerals - especially if this gets them out of balance. I

generally get about 75% of the RDA of these minerals from my diet -

so I am shooting for 150% of the RDA on them.

There is evidence from Walford's studies that calorie restriction in

older individuals requires additional vitamins and minerals. The RDA

or less may actually decrease lifespan. There is a new study out in

the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition that shows that dieters -

i.e. calorie restricters - needed 150% of the RDA of calcium to avoid

bone loss. Many CRers have anemia, despite getting the RDA of iron.

These nutrients are the parts your body uses to build itself. As you

age your absorption of them is generally less effective - so you may

need to eat more.

[Guest guest]

I don't disagree with your approach, but I do question that we can necessarily absorb more of a nutrient by eating more of it. I don't believe that CRONies will prevent osteo by eating 150% of Ca RDA. It may not be a bad thing to do, I think hormones control the outcome.

Regards.

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

From: maxwell_mom

Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 8:54 AM

Subject: [ ] Re: More on the WUSTL Study

There is evidence from Walford's studies that calorie restriction in older individuals requires additional vitamins and minerals. The RDA or less may actually decrease lifespan. There is a new study out in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition that shows that dieters - i.e. calorie restricters - needed 150% of the RDA of calcium to avoid bone loss. Many CRers have anemia, despite getting the RDA of iron. These nutrients are the parts your body uses to build itself. As you age your absorption of them is generally less effective - so you may need to eat more.

[Guest guest]

>>> I don't disagree with your approach, but I do question that we can

necessarily absorb more of a nutrient by eating more of it.

For most nutrients there is a point where increased intake equals decreased

absorbtion. In the link I posted on Calcium the other day, the cutoff was

somewhere around 550 mgs. That if you took more than that at once, the

abosrbtion of it went way down, so you basically lost the value of the increased

amount.