Re: need milk for calcium?

[Guest guest]

I have read that in cultures that don't eat/drink dairy, they have

well-mineralized bones, but smaller. I have also read that with the abundance of

calcium in the dairy-rich American diet, our bodies waste a lot of the mineral.

Gretchen

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

From: Irene de Villiers

nature would not permit a calcium-free diet - or

one so low in calcium as to be bad for health. But the O type BTD is

indeed poor in nutrition as regards calcium.

" Taking a supplement " is not how nature's clever design works ever.

[Guest guest]

mcpherson.bg@... wrote:

> I have read that in cultures that don't eat/drink dairy, they have

> well-mineralized bones, but smaller.

Interesting. But I am not convinced, and I'll explain why:

My own family is not in the category to use less calcium. I happen to be

6 foot three, not little for a woman :-) My sons are 6 foot 6 and 6 foot

10 and they also grew up on milk and have the bone structure to prove

it. When the younger and taller one fell onto his back from 27 feet in

the air, he had 3 broken vertebrae but the orthopod in charge of his

treatment had his jaw drop when he saw what kind of dense bones were

there - no wonder he survived and got up to walk home, he said.

My mother was only 4 foot 11, just to show we cover all the bases

on size in the family, and she had severe osteoporosis because she did

not drink milk other than about 2 drops in her tea. So I'm not convinced

that small people need less calcium, at all. Especially not in my family.

> I have also read that with

> the abundance of calcium in the dairy-rich American diet, our bodies

> waste a lot of the mineral.

Research shows that we often absorb only about a third of what we ingest

from milk, but that the reason is more to do with not having it with the

right other dietary items for its absorption than because we are not

supposed to absorb it. Inefficient absorption only makes it more

relevant not less relevant in my eyes, to provide in the diet.

Calcium metabolism is extremely complex - it's not a matter of

whether it is in the diet or not - there is a lot more to it. Once we

absorb it, it does not automatically become available to the bones

either - there is a whole new string of factors involved in that aspect

of calcium metabolism - and still another set involved in keeping it in

the bones.

But before any of that can happen we do need to ingest it. We can not

build bones and avoid osteoporosis without the calcium we need actually

being ingested in the first place. My mother would have had decent bones

if that were the case. I don't buy that we are supposed to be little

people with little bones, nature doesn't work that way; we are designed

a lot better than that. And again my mother should then have had decent

bones with her little size if being little and not having calcium had

the effect described at the start of the email.

I suspect we will one day find out how our bodies were designed to

get calcium as type O. I don't believe we were not designed to get it

from our diet. Nature's design has no holes in it that I have found to date.

Namaste,

Irene

--

Irene de Villiers, B.Sc; AASCA; MCSSA; D.I.Hom.

P.O.Box 4703, Spokane, WA 99220-0703.

http://www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html

Veterinary Homeopath and Feline Information Counsellor.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/27/2004 1:25:48 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

furryboots@... writes:

mcpherson.bg@... wrote:

> I have read that in cultures that don't eat/drink dairy, they have

> well-mineralized bones, but smaller.

Interesting. But I am not convinced, and I'll explain why:

You can get calcium from a lot of sources besides milk. There is a

comparison on the following website and milk is pretty far down the list.

http://www.naturodoc.com/library/nutrition/calcium.htm

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/27/2004 9:07:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

salbud@... writes:

Max,

I saw the product names and the milligrams of calcium. Where did it say how

much of each of those foods has that amount of calcium in it?

I noticed that too. It didn't say so I assumed each measure was equal.

[Guest guest]

Smaller bones come from exercise and genetics. Large or small you want the

mineralization and milk is not the answer, except to milk producers

Maddviking@... wrote:In a message dated 8/27/2004 1:25:48 AM Eastern

Daylight Time,

furryboots@... writes:

mcpherson.bg@... wrote:

> I have read that in cultures that don't eat/drink dairy, they have

> well-mineralized bones, but smaller.

Interesting. But I am not convinced, and I'll explain why:

You can get calcium from a lot of sources besides milk. There is a

comparison on the following website and milk is pretty far down the list.

http://www.naturodoc.com/library/nutrition/calcium.htm

[Guest guest]

Max,

I saw the product names and the milligrams of calcium. Where did it say how

much of each of those foods has that amount of calcium in it?

Re: need milk for calcium?

> In a message dated 8/27/2004 1:25:48 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

> furryboots@... writes:

> mcpherson.bg@... wrote:

> > I have read that in cultures that don't eat/drink dairy, they have

> > well-mineralized bones, but smaller.

>

> Interesting. But I am not convinced, and I'll explain why:

>

> You can get calcium from a lot of sources besides milk. There is a

> comparison on the following website and milk is pretty far down the list.

> http://www.naturodoc.com/library/nutrition/calcium.htm

[Guest guest]

Is that per serving? I wonder what size a serving of Wakame is. I had no

idea seaweeds had so much calcium.

Re: need milk for calcium?

In a message dated 8/27/2004 1:25:48 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

furryboots@... writes:

mcpherson.bg@... wrote:

> I have read that in cultures that don't eat/drink dairy, they have

> well-mineralized bones, but smaller.

Interesting. But I am not convinced, and I'll explain why:

You can get calcium from a lot of sources besides milk. There is a

comparison on the following website and milk is pretty far down the list.

http://www.naturodoc.com/library/nutrition/calcium.htm

[Guest guest]

Maddviking@... wrote:

> In a message dated 8/27/2004 1:25:48 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

> furryboots@... writes:

> mcpherson.bg@... wrote:

>

>>I have read that in cultures that don't eat/drink dairy, they have

>>well-mineralized bones, but smaller.

>

>

> Interesting. But I am not convinced, and I'll explain why:

>

> You can get calcium from a lot of sources besides milk. There is a

> comparison on the following website and milk is pretty far down the list.

> http://www.naturodoc.com/library/nutrition/calcium.htm

I had a look but without any quantities it has no value.

For example they list Sardines as 443, but do not day how many sardines.

In fact that requires at least ten sardines, which is WAY more than a

serving - it's 2 and half cans of sardines. I don't know anyone who

considers 2 and a half cans a serving - and that would only be for less

than half a day's supply.

3.5 oz of kelp is only 168mg Calcium.

So you'd need 6 times that for a day's supply. I don't know anyone who

eats 3.5 oz of kelp nor any store to buy it. It would take a pound and a

half of kelp to get the calcium in the list.

As for the milk at 119, that is completely misleading, also because

there is no quantity listed. That is the calcium in 0.4 cups of milk -

less than half a cup. A milk serving is a cup at least and has 300mg in

it, so that 3 and a third cups is a day's supply.

Three and a third cups of milk is a lot more doable daily than two and a

half cans of sardines a day or a pound and a half of kelp.

You need a list that gives calcium per serving :-)

I appreciate the link - but with no quantities or at the least a normal

serving amount for each item - it is 100% hype and no reality.

Namaste,

Irene

--

Irene de Villiers, B.Sc; AASCA; MCSSA; D.I.Hom.

P.O.Box 4703, Spokane, WA 99220-0703.

http://www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html

Veterinary Homeopath and Feline Information Counsellor.

[Guest guest]

kathy matthews wrote:

> Smaller bones come from exercise and genetics. Large or small you

> want the mineralization and milk is not the answer, except to

> milk producers

Humans are milk producers :-))

Human milk has 79mg calcium per cup, a lot less than cow's milk. Human

milk is pretty wishy washy compared with other mammals, except for

having twice the unsaturated fat and a lot more vitamins. Humans need to

start eating meat as well, for iron if nothing else, very young.

Why do you think Nature would limit milk to " milk producers " ?

Only mammals are milk producers - hence the name. I've not thought about

why a non-mammal would or would not benefit from some milk as food if it

was readily available. Can other species not get nutrients from milk?

Birds or snakes perhaps?

I confess I never thought about it before :-)

Namaste,

IRene

--

Irene de Villiers, B.Sc; AASCA; MCSSA; D.I.Hom.

P.O.Box 4703, Spokane, WA 99220-0703.

http://www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html

Veterinary Homeopath and Feline Information Counsellor.

[Guest guest]

wrote:

> Is that per serving? I wonder what size a serving of Wakame is. I had no

> idea seaweeds had so much calcium.

They don't. You'd have to eat a pound and a half of kelp to get the

calcium they list.

A serving is 3.5 ounces. You'd need seven.

Namaste,

IRene

--

Irene de Villiers, B.Sc; AASCA; MCSSA; D.I.Hom.

P.O.Box 4703, Spokane, WA 99220-0703.

http://www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html

Veterinary Homeopath and Feline Information Counsellor.

[Guest guest]

it's not only a question of how many milligrams of calcium is in a product -

much more important is, if it is absorbable for our body

love

[Guest guest]

Opernschule BGZ, Y.Zollikofer wrote:

> it's not only a question of how many milligrams of calcium is in a product -

> much more important is, if it is absorbable for our body

I agree with you. It matters a lot to get it absorbed.

Absorbability does vary a bit by the form of calcium but also by what

comes with it.

Whether we absorb it does however depend on factors like presence

of fat and Vit D and alk phos etc.

Calcium in milk works well because it comes with fat to absorb it and

lactose in milk increases alk phos which helps absorb it.

Calcium in sardines is also good - comes with fat.

Calcium in kelp is not so great - no fat to speak of - but you could add

it in the same meal with your pound and a half of kelp :-)

I take the calcium issue seriously in the O diet plan. It is a definite

hole in the O diet that needs to be addressed. Osteoporosis and other

calcium deficiency issues are no joke.

Apart from bone structure and development, calcium is involved in the

clotting process, nerve transmission, muscle stimulation, parathyroid

hormone function and metabolism of Vitamin D, and it is involved in

mineral storage in bone, it eases insomnia, and regulates heartbeat,

helps with blood pH, is need to utilize iron, activates digestive

enzymes - and the list goes on.

Deficiency of calcium causes muscle cramps, joint pains, heart palpitations

increased cholesterol, slow pulse, insomnia, impaired growth, irritable

nerves,brittle nails, eczema, numbness of arms/kegs, tooth structure

problems, slow blood clotting, numbness and tingling in arms and legs,

and later osteoporosis. Blood pressure increases, abnormal heartbeat

occurs, dementia, convulsions, estrogen balance is affected. Etc etc.

It's not a mineral to get too little of because of O type diet that we

are trying to comply with. Not getting calcium we need is dangerous and

not something to play with.

I think it is taken way too lightly. The quantity per day matters, and

should be 1000mg and we need to know where we are getting that amount

from. " There is calcium in kale, kelp and sardines " just doesn't cut it.

We need to count milligrams.

Namaste,

Irene

--

Irene de Villiers, B.Sc; AASCA; MCSSA; D.I.Hom.

P.O.Box 4703, Spokane, WA 99220-0703.

http://www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html

Veterinary Homeopath and Feline Information Counsellor.

[Guest guest]

LOL--you just want to drink milk. That's up to you but don't ask me to agree

with you.

[Guest guest]

From p. 59 of ER4YT:

Other Type Os may eat four of five eggs a week and small amounts of

dairy, but it is generally a poor protein source for your blood

type. Be sure, however, to take a daily calcium supplement,

especially if you are a woman, since dairy foods are the best natural

source of absorbable calcium. "

The Eat, Drink and Be Healthy book also says supplements are a better

source of calcium for most people. Milk too expensive for what you

get and negatives like saturated fat.

You have to admit that your skim milk powder is not even the best

form. Dr. D'Adamo does recommend whole milk as less inhibitory to

the metabolism if you're going to have milk.

I've been taking a daily multi-vitamin- mineral supplement for

years. The calcium from that plus food sources seems to be enough

for me at least based on bone density. The standard requirements are

based on a population that guzzles soft drinks and doesn't exercise,

both of which increase the need for dietary calcium.

Cheryl

> > it's not only a question of how many milligrams of calcium is in

a product -

> > much more important is, if it is absorbable for our body

>

> I agree with you. It matters a lot to get it absorbed.

>

> Absorbability does vary a bit by the form of calcium but also by

what

> comes with it.

> Whether we absorb it does however depend on factors like

presence

> of fat and Vit D and alk phos etc.

> Calcium in milk works well because it comes with fat to absorb it

and

> lactose in milk increases alk phos which helps absorb it.

> Calcium in sardines is also good - comes with fat.

> Calcium in kelp is not so great - no fat to speak of - but you

could add

> it in the same meal with your pound and a half of kelp :-)

>

> I take the calcium issue seriously in the O diet plan. It is a

definite

> hole in the O diet that needs to be addressed. Osteoporosis and

other

> calcium deficiency issues are no joke.

> Apart from bone structure and development, calcium is involved in

the

> clotting process, nerve transmission, muscle stimulation,

parathyroid

> hormone function and metabolism of Vitamin D, and it is involved in

> mineral storage in bone, it eases insomnia, and regulates

heartbeat,

> helps with blood pH, is need to utilize iron, activates digestive

> enzymes - and the list goes on.

>

> Deficiency of calcium causes muscle cramps, joint pains, heart

palpitations

> increased cholesterol, slow pulse, insomnia, impaired growth,

irritable

> nerves,brittle nails, eczema, numbness of arms/kegs, tooth

structure

> problems, slow blood clotting, numbness and tingling in arms and

legs,

> and later osteoporosis. Blood pressure increases, abnormal

heartbeat

> occurs, dementia, convulsions, estrogen balance is affected. Etc

etc.

>

> It's not a mineral to get too little of because of O type diet that

we

> are trying to comply with. Not getting calcium we need is dangerous

and

> not something to play with.

> I think it is taken way too lightly. The quantity per day matters,

and

> should be 1000mg and we need to know where we are getting that

amount

> from. " There is calcium in kale, kelp and sardines " just doesn't

cut it.

> We need to count milligrams.

>

> Namaste,

> Irene

> --

> Irene de Villiers, B.Sc; AASCA; MCSSA; D.I.Hom.

> P.O.Box 4703, Spokane, WA 99220-0703.

> http://www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html

> Veterinary Homeopath and Feline Information Counsellor.

[Guest guest]

Maddviking@... wrote:

> LOL--you just want to drink milk. That's up to you but don't ask me to agree

> with you.

You didn't quote anyone to know whose email you were answering- but as I

last wrote on the topic maybe it was directed to me?

If so, actually I do not drink milk :-))

I add milk powder to my meals to make rich gravy that increases protein

and decreases heartburn, and provides the calcium that keeps me healthy.

A source of raw milk may well be healthier but I don't want so much

liquid in my food as you get when you use milk as opposed to dried milk

powder. It would be a compromise and I don't yet know the science behind

it to know if raw milk would be less problem to type O than powdered

milk. So far I am not *experiencing* any detectable problems unless I

stop the milk in my supper :-))

That doesn't mean there are none - there may be ones I do not know

about. The ones I know about are not an issue for me. It may also be

that in my case I need the milk more than the average O person due to

the cortisol effect on bones I have to contend with and which is not

usual for type O. It's all why I am looking for the science behind it so

I can make an informed choice and not a guess :-))

So I am looking for what's right for me - and it might or might not be

useful to others.

Instinct and experience and science ALL say that Nature does not provide

deficient diets. For that reason there has to be a type I diet that has

proper calcium in it. Neither D'Adamo nor anyone else has come up with

that diet. All the ideas so far are for things with insufficient

calcium, where the person suggesting them did not do the math for how

much calcium is needed.

Seems to me IF there is a calcium source that is natural for type O

other then milk, then it would not be that hard to find! But nobody

found it yet :-) I'd rather put up with milk adverse effects than

osteoporosis adverse efects and other calcium deficiency adverse effects

- and that is the diet choice we all have whether it is admitted or not.

Namaste,

Irene

--

Irene de Villiers, B.Sc; AASCA; MCSSA; D.I.Hom.

P.O.Box 4703, Spokane, WA 99220-0703.

http://www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html

Veterinary Homeopath and Feline Information Counsellor.

[Guest guest]

cherylhcmba wrote:

>>From p. 59 of ER4YT:

> Other Type Os may eat four of five eggs a week and small amounts of

> dairy, but it is generally a poor protein source for your blood

> type. Be sure, however, to take a daily calcium supplement,

> especially if you are a woman, since dairy foods are the best natural

> source of absorbable calcium. "

Calcium supplements have other side effects. I do take a Ca supplement -

but I do not believe that a naturally perfect diet would lack calcium

:-)) Doesn't make sense.

I don't know why milk is supposed to be a " poor protein " while the

animal that makes it is supposed to be good protein - again the science

is missing for me. But even if it was " poor " in some way - that's not

negative. It still does provide some protein and all the needed calcium

in a balanced diet. I'm not suggesting an all dairy diet, only enough to

get the needed calcium which is 3 cups a day.

> The Eat, Drink and Be Healthy book also says supplements are a better

> source of calcium for most people. Milk too expensive for what you

> get and negatives like saturated fat.

I do not agree. I get powdered milk inexpensively here and it has no

saturated fat in it. So for me those issues can be set aside.

> You have to admit that your skim milk powder is not even the best

> form.

I do not admit that at all. I think it is the best form. I use it in

gravy with extra virgin olive oil, and basically that is concentrated form.

> Dr. D'Adamo does recommend whole milk as less inhibitory to

> the metabolism if you're going to have milk.

The science being?

I'd be interested in whether the olive oil with the skim milk is even

better than the whole milk.

> I've been taking a daily multi-vitamin- mineral supplement for

> years. The calcium from that plus food sources seems to be enough

> for me at least based on bone density.

It's good you found what works for you. I'm still looking :-))

> The standard requirements are

> based on a population that guzzles soft drinks and doesn't exercise,

> both of which increase the need for dietary calcium.

Where did you find that claim?

It's not true and the research shows otherwise and so do the

osteoporosis figures.

Research this year also shows the RDA of Vit D is too low to absorb the

needed calcium.

The research by nutritionists like Adelle suggests that if

anything the standard calcium RDA is too low, and the proof is in the

osteoporosis figures for people who eat a supposedly healthy diet.

My type O mother is a case in point. She never drank a soft drink or

used sugar in her tea or anywhere; she ate a high protein and vegetable

diet, and garden fruit. She took calcium supplements, but disliked

dairy. Her osteoporosis was the worst I saw in a small person (4 foot

11) - her hump bent her double and she was in constant pain; she had

replacement joints and so on. Her exercise was walking - maybe not

vigorous enough but it was daily till she died at 84.

I see no reason or evidence to jump to the assumption that RDA is

based on soda-guzzling couch potatoes, and to thus pretend it has no

significance. If anything it is set too low at 1000mg a day. An

Australian study published this year by the School of Exercise and

Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Burwood, VIC 3125, using

carefully controlled diet and exercise suggests a 1200mg minimum.

A Nov 2003 study also shows how much rickets there is in Kenyan children

and how important it was to add milk into their diet to help the meat

and veg they ate that was not providing enough calcium to prevent

rickets, and that what they got without milk gave only 38% of what they

needed. (Those kids have no sodapop or couches.)

An Italian study published last year studied " the dietary intakes of

macro elements (Ca, Mg, Na, K, P) and trace elements (Fe, Zn, Cu, Se)

from the Italian total diet. The contribution of the most representative

food groups of the total diet (cereals and cereal products, vegetables,

fruit, milk and dairy products, meat and meat products, fish) to the

daily intakes of these nutrients was also evaluated. " ....and their

conclusion .... " The present findings indicated that the dietary

patterns of the Italian total diet were generally consistent with

current Italian dietary recommendations for both macro and trace

elements; except for a major concern for Ca, for which daily intake was

only 76% of the needed calcium. "

Japanese research shows that the lower RDA in Japan in in proportion

with the higher one in USA based on average body size of people there

versus here.

They actually measures calcium requirement in older people using a low

calcium diet plus supplementation to measure what was actually needed by

the body.

They found the RDA confirmed both for Japan - and by ratio of average

body size, also the USA one. You can read it for yourself here if you like:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve & db=pubmed & dopt=Abstra\

ct & list_uids=11716189

So basically - I challenge the contention that the calcium RDA in USA is

based on sodapop guzzling couch potatoes. Do you have research to

confirm that, or is it just hype from somewhere?

Calcium health is too important to use hype as a basis for not getting

calcium.

I'm aware that calcium supplements are available - but they are not

necessarily appropriate as they come all by themselves without the

appropriate absorption factors or important trace elements that

accompany calcium in a dietary source.

So on following up your contention that the RDA for Ca is too high, I

find the opposite is confirmed in solid research the world over.

It is not too high and is very likely too low, even for those on a

proper meat and vegetable diet, who do regular exercise.

I've learned over and over again, that the source of information to stay

healthy is really important. Not sure where you read it, but someone's

assumption about sodapop is not research, and can lead an awful lot of

folks down the garden path.

Namaste,

Irene

--

Irene de Villiers, B.Sc; AASCA; MCSSA; D.I.Hom.

P.O.Box 4703, Spokane, WA 99220-0703.

http://www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html

Veterinary Homeopath and Feline Information Counsellor.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/29/2004 2:54:29 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

furryboots@... writes:

> Dr. D'Adamo does recommend whole milk as less inhibitory to

> the metabolism if you're going to have milk.

The science being?

I'd be interested in whether the olive oil with the skim milk is even

better than the whole milk.

Probably because whole milk has more fat in it. Butter is a neutral.

[Guest guest]

> I've learned over and over again, that the source of

information to stay

> healthy is really important. Not sure where you read it, but

someone's

> assumption about sodapop is not research, and can lead an awful

lot of

> folks down the garden path.

>

> Namaste,

> Irene

It's not assumption about the sodapop. At least regular soda.

There is plenty of research that shows that corn strips calcium

from the bones. Archeology shows just when corn entered the

Native American diet - their bones were weaker and more brittle.

What is soda but high fructose corn syrup?

How much corn was in your mother's diet? You say she at high

protein and veggies - was one of those corn? Did she eat corn

meal? Condiments with corn syrup? The culprit may not have been

too little calcium in the diet, but too much corn.

Just a thought.

[Guest guest]

I didn't know about corn, but the phosphoric acid in sodas is what is

primarily implicated in the leaching of calcium.

> > I've learned over and over again, that the source of

> information to stay

> > healthy is really important. Not sure where you read it, but

> someone's

> > assumption about sodapop is not research, and can lead an awful

> lot of

> > folks down the garden path.

> >

> > Namaste,

> > Irene

>

> It's not assumption about the sodapop. At least regular soda.

> There is plenty of research that shows that corn strips calcium

> from the bones. Archeology shows just when corn entered the

> Native American diet - their bones were weaker and more brittle.

> What is soda but high fructose corn syrup?

>

> How much corn was in your mother's diet? You say she at high

> protein and veggies - was one of those corn? Did she eat corn

> meal? Condiments with corn syrup? The culprit may not have been

> too little calcium in the diet, but too much corn.

>

> Just a thought.

[Guest guest]

Not human milk produces -- I mean commercial milk producers that are selling

milk.

Irene de Villiers <furryboots@...> wrote:

kathy matthews wrote:

> Smaller bones come from exercise and genetics. Large or small you

> want the mineralization and milk is not the answer, except to

> milk producers

Humans are milk producers :-))

Human milk has 79mg calcium per cup, a lot less than cow's milk. Human

milk is pretty wishy washy compared with other mammals, except for

having twice the unsaturated fat and a lot more vitamins. Humans need to

start eating meat as well, for iron if nothing else, very young.

Why do you think Nature would limit milk to " milk producers " ?

Only mammals are milk producers - hence the name. I've not thought about

why a non-mammal would or would not benefit from some milk as food if it

was readily available. Can other species not get nutrients from milk?

Birds or snakes perhaps?

I confess I never thought about it before :-)

Namaste,

IRene

--

Irene de Villiers, B.Sc; AASCA; MCSSA; D.I.Hom.

P.O.Box 4703, Spokane, WA 99220-0703.

http://www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html

Veterinary Homeopath and Feline Information Counsellor.

[Guest guest]

I had written in a post you must have missed, wondering if having a

healthy oil with skim milk would bring it up to the same level as

whole milk. That sounds reasonable to me.

I do like the Eat, Drink and Be Healthy book. It's written by a

Harvard M.D. challenging the current food pyramid, isn't everyone.

He recommends Tums as and inexpensive calcium supplement however and

I do not think that is a great source either.

The kids in Kenya probably have so many deficiencies that it becomes

hard to pin anything on one mineral. It could also be deficiencies

of vitamin K, C or protein needed to induce adequate alkaline

phosphatase for absorption.

A 4'11 " mother and a 6'3 " daughter, now that is interesting

genetics. Walking is not enough weight bearing for a person that

slight. Heavy old girls like me can get by with it though.

The Japanese reference underscores the fact that there is no magic

number for everyone. It depends on weight, exercise level, diet,

environment (sunlight for vitamin D) and blood type, of course.

Cheryl

> >>From p. 59 of ER4YT:

> > Other Type Os may eat four of five eggs a week and small amounts

of

> > dairy, but it is generally a poor protein source for your blood

> > type. Be sure, however, to take a daily calcium supplement,

> > especially if you are a woman, since dairy foods are the best

natural

> > source of absorbable calcium. "

>

> Calcium supplements have other side effects. I do take a Ca

supplement -

> but I do not believe that a naturally perfect diet would lack

calcium

> :-)) Doesn't make sense.

> I don't know why milk is supposed to be a " poor protein " while

the

> animal that makes it is supposed to be good protein - again the

science

> is missing for me. But even if it was " poor " in some way - that's

not

> negative. It still does provide some protein and all the needed

calcium

> in a balanced diet. I'm not suggesting an all dairy diet, only

enough to

> get the needed calcium which is 3 cups a day.

>

> > The Eat, Drink and Be Healthy book also says supplements are a

better

> > source of calcium for most people. Milk too expensive for what

you

> > get and negatives like saturated fat.

>

> I do not agree. I get powdered milk inexpensively here and it has

no

> saturated fat in it. So for me those issues can be set aside.

>

> > You have to admit that your skim milk powder is not even the best

> > form.

>

> I do not admit that at all. I think it is the best form. I use it

in

> gravy with extra virgin olive oil, and basically that is

concentrated form.

>

> > Dr. D'Adamo does recommend whole milk as less inhibitory to

> > the metabolism if you're going to have milk.

>

> The science being?

> I'd be interested in whether the olive oil with the skim milk is

even

> better than the whole milk.

>

> > I've been taking a daily multi-vitamin- mineral supplement for

> > years. The calcium from that plus food sources seems to be

enough

> > for me at least based on bone density.

>

> It's good you found what works for you. I'm still looking :-))

>

> > The standard requirements are

> > based on a population that guzzles soft drinks and doesn't

exercise,

> > both of which increase the need for dietary calcium.

>

> Where did you find that claim?

> It's not true and the research shows otherwise and so do the

> osteoporosis figures.

> Research this year also shows the RDA of Vit D is too low to absorb

the

> needed calcium.

>

> The research by nutritionists like Adelle suggests that if

> anything the standard calcium RDA is too low, and the proof is in

the

> osteoporosis figures for people who eat a supposedly healthy diet.

> My type O mother is a case in point. She never drank a soft drink

or

> used sugar in her tea or anywhere; she ate a high protein and

vegetable

> diet, and garden fruit. She took calcium supplements, but disliked

> dairy. Her osteoporosis was the worst I saw in a small person (4

foot

> 11) - her hump bent her double and she was in constant pain; she

had

> replacement joints and so on. Her exercise was walking - maybe not

> vigorous enough but it was daily till she died at 84.

>

> I see no reason or evidence to jump to the assumption that RDA

is

> based on soda-guzzling couch potatoes, and to thus pretend it has

no

> significance. If anything it is set too low at 1000mg a day. An

> Australian study published this year by the School of Exercise and

> Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Burwood, VIC 3125, using

> carefully controlled diet and exercise suggests a 1200mg minimum.

>

> A Nov 2003 study also shows how much rickets there is in Kenyan

children

> and how important it was to add milk into their diet to help the

meat

> and veg they ate that was not providing enough calcium to prevent

> rickets, and that what they got without milk gave only 38% of what

they

> needed. (Those kids have no sodapop or couches.)

>

> An Italian study published last year studied " the dietary intakes

of

> macro elements (Ca, Mg, Na, K, P) and trace elements (Fe, Zn, Cu,

Se)

> from the Italian total diet. The contribution of the most

representative

> food groups of the total diet (cereals and cereal products,

vegetables,

> fruit, milk and dairy products, meat and meat products, fish) to

the

> daily intakes of these nutrients was also evaluated. " ....and their

> conclusion .... " The present findings indicated that the dietary

> patterns of the Italian total diet were generally consistent with

> current Italian dietary recommendations for both macro and trace

> elements; except for a major concern for Ca, for which daily intake

was

> only 76% of the needed calcium. "

>

> Japanese research shows that the lower RDA in Japan in in

proportion

> with the higher one in USA based on average body size of people

there

> versus here.

> They actually measures calcium requirement in older people using

a low

> calcium diet plus supplementation to measure what was actually

needed by

> the body.

> They found the RDA confirmed both for Japan - and by ratio of

average

> body size, also the USA one. You can read it for yourself here if

you like:

> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?

cmd=Retrieve & db=pubmed & dopt=Abstract & list_uids=11716189

>

> So basically - I challenge the contention that the calcium RDA in

USA is

> based on sodapop guzzling couch potatoes. Do you have research to

> confirm that, or is it just hype from somewhere?

>

> Calcium health is too important to use hype as a basis for not

getting

> calcium.

>

> I'm aware that calcium supplements are available - but they are not

> necessarily appropriate as they come all by themselves without the

> appropriate absorption factors or important trace elements that

> accompany calcium in a dietary source.

>

> So on following up your contention that the RDA for Ca is too high,

I

> find the opposite is confirmed in solid research the world over.

> It is not too high and is very likely too low, even for those on a

> proper meat and vegetable diet, who do regular exercise.

>

> I've learned over and over again, that the source of information to

stay

> healthy is really important. Not sure where you read it, but

someone's

> assumption about sodapop is not research, and can lead an awful lot

of

> folks down the garden path.

>

> Namaste,

> Irene

> --

> Irene de Villiers, B.Sc; AASCA; MCSSA; D.I.Hom.

> P.O.Box 4703, Spokane, WA 99220-0703.

> http://www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html

> Veterinary Homeopath and Feline Information Counsellor.

[Guest guest]

Doing healthy oil with milk is probably not answerable. If milk is not good for

you, if you don't digest it well just doing a healthy oil will not make a lot of

difference.

Whole milk, right out of the cow is different that whole milk from the store.

Too many variables for an answer.

cherylhcmba <cherylhcmba@...> wrote:

I had written in a post you must have missed, wondering if having a

healthy oil with skim milk would bring it up to the same level as

whole milk. That sounds reasonable to me.

I do like the Eat, Drink and Be Healthy book. It's written by a

Harvard M.D. challenging the current food pyramid, isn't everyone.

He recommends Tums as and inexpensive calcium supplement however and

I do not think that is a great source either.

The kids in Kenya probably have so many deficiencies that it becomes

hard to pin anything on one mineral. It could also be deficiencies

of vitamin K, C or protein needed to induce adequate alkaline

phosphatase for absorption.

A 4'11 " mother and a 6'3 " daughter, now that is interesting

genetics. Walking is not enough weight bearing for a person that

slight. Heavy old girls like me can get by with it though.

The Japanese reference underscores the fact that there is no magic

number for everyone. It depends on weight, exercise level, diet,

environment (sunlight for vitamin D) and blood type, of course.

Cheryl

> >>From p. 59 of ER4YT:

> > Other Type Os may eat four of five eggs a week and small amounts

of

> > dairy, but it is generally a poor protein source for your blood

> > type. Be sure, however, to take a daily calcium supplement,

> > especially if you are a woman, since dairy foods are the best

natural

> > source of absorbable calcium. "

>

> Calcium supplements have other side effects. I do take a Ca

supplement -

> but I do not believe that a naturally perfect diet would lack

calcium

> :-)) Doesn't make sense.

> I don't know why milk is supposed to be a " poor protein " while

the

> animal that makes it is supposed to be good protein - again the

science

> is missing for me. But even if it was " poor " in some way - that's

not

> negative. It still does provide some protein and all the needed

calcium

> in a balanced diet. I'm not suggesting an all dairy diet, only

enough to

> get the needed calcium which is 3 cups a day.

>

> > The Eat, Drink and Be Healthy book also says supplements are a

better

> > source of calcium for most people. Milk too expensive for what

you

> > get and negatives like saturated fat.

>

> I do not agree. I get powdered milk inexpensively here and it has

no

> saturated fat in it. So for me those issues can be set aside.

>

> > You have to admit that your skim milk powder is not even the best

> > form.

>

> I do not admit that at all. I think it is the best form. I use it

in

> gravy with extra virgin olive oil, and basically that is

concentrated form.

>

> > Dr. D'Adamo does recommend whole milk as less inhibitory to

> > the metabolism if you're going to have milk.

>

> The science being?

> I'd be interested in whether the olive oil with the skim milk is

even

> better than the whole milk.

>

> > I've been taking a daily multi-vitamin- mineral supplement for

> > years. The calcium from that plus food sources seems to be

enough

> > for me at least based on bone density.

>

> It's good you found what works for you. I'm still looking :-))

>

> > The standard requirements are

> > based on a population that guzzles soft drinks and doesn't

exercise,

> > both of which increase the need for dietary calcium.

>

> Where did you find that claim?

> It's not true and the research shows otherwise and so do the

> osteoporosis figures.

> Research this year also shows the RDA of Vit D is too low to absorb

the

> needed calcium.

>

> The research by nutritionists like Adelle suggests that if

> anything the standard calcium RDA is too low, and the proof is in

the

> osteoporosis figures for people who eat a supposedly healthy diet.

> My type O mother is a case in point. She never drank a soft drink

or

> used sugar in her tea or anywhere; she ate a high protein and

vegetable

> diet, and garden fruit. She took calcium supplements, but disliked

> dairy. Her osteoporosis was the worst I saw in a small person (4

foot

> 11) - her hump bent her double and she was in constant pain; she

had

> replacement joints and so on. Her exercise was walking - maybe not

> vigorous enough but it was daily till she died at 84.

>

> I see no reason or evidence to jump to the assumption that RDA

is

> based on soda-guzzling couch potatoes, and to thus pretend it has

no

> significance. If anything it is set too low at 1000mg a day. An

> Australian study published this year by the School of Exercise and

> Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Burwood, VIC 3125, using

> carefully controlled diet and exercise suggests a 1200mg minimum.

>

> A Nov 2003 study also shows how much rickets there is in Kenyan

children

> and how important it was to add milk into their diet to help the

meat

> and veg they ate that was not providing enough calcium to prevent

> rickets, and that what they got without milk gave only 38% of what

they

> needed. (Those kids have no sodapop or couches.)

>

> An Italian study published last year studied " the dietary intakes

of

> macro elements (Ca, Mg, Na, K, P) and trace elements (Fe, Zn, Cu,

Se)

> from the Italian total diet. The contribution of the most

representative

> food groups of the total diet (cereals and cereal products,

vegetables,

> fruit, milk and dairy products, meat and meat products, fish) to

the

> daily intakes of these nutrients was also evaluated. " ....and their

> conclusion .... " The present findings indicated that the dietary

> patterns of the Italian total diet were generally consistent with

> current Italian dietary recommendations for both macro and trace

> elements; except for a major concern for Ca, for which daily intake

was

> only 76% of the needed calcium. "

>

> Japanese research shows that the lower RDA in Japan in in

proportion

> with the higher one in USA based on average body size of people

there

> versus here.

> They actually measures calcium requirement in older people using

a low

> calcium diet plus supplementation to measure what was actually

needed by

> the body.

> They found the RDA confirmed both for Japan - and by ratio of

average

> body size, also the USA one. You can read it for yourself here if

you like:

> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?

cmd=Retrieve & db=pubmed & dopt=Abstract & list_uids=11716189

>

> So basically - I challenge the contention that the calcium RDA in

USA is

> based on sodapop guzzling couch potatoes. Do you have research to

> confirm that, or is it just hype from somewhere?

>

> Calcium health is too important to use hype as a basis for not

getting

> calcium.

>

> I'm aware that calcium supplements are available - but they are not

> necessarily appropriate as they come all by themselves without the

> appropriate absorption factors or important trace elements that

> accompany calcium in a dietary source.

>

> So on following up your contention that the RDA for Ca is too high,

I

> find the opposite is confirmed in solid research the world over.

> It is not too high and is very likely too low, even for those on a

> proper meat and vegetable diet, who do regular exercise.

>

> I've learned over and over again, that the source of information to

stay

> healthy is really important. Not sure where you read it, but

someone's

> assumption about sodapop is not research, and can lead an awful lot

of

> folks down the garden path.

>

> Namaste,

> Irene

> --

> Irene de Villiers, B.Sc; AASCA; MCSSA; D.I.Hom.

> P.O.Box 4703, Spokane, WA 99220-0703.

> http://www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html

> Veterinary Homeopath and Feline Information Counsellor.

[Guest guest]

The healthy oil isn't to improve digestibility, only to improve the

glycemic effect. I'm assume that's why whole milk isn't classified

as a metabolic inhibitor whereas low fat and skim are. It would

still have all the other problems such as contributing to indican and

polyamine toxicity.

> > >>From p. 59 of ER4YT:

> > > Other Type Os may eat four of five eggs a week and small

amounts

> of

> > > dairy, but it is generally a poor protein source for your blood

> > > type. Be sure, however, to take a daily calcium supplement,

> > > especially if you are a woman, since dairy foods are the best

> natural

> > > source of absorbable calcium. "

> >

> > Calcium supplements have other side effects. I do take a Ca

> supplement -

> > but I do not believe that a naturally perfect diet would lack

> calcium

> > :-)) Doesn't make sense.

> > I don't know why milk is supposed to be a " poor protein "

while

> the

> > animal that makes it is supposed to be good protein - again the

> science

> > is missing for me. But even if it was " poor " in some way - that's

> not

> > negative. It still does provide some protein and all the needed

> calcium

> > in a balanced diet. I'm not suggesting an all dairy diet, only

> enough to

> > get the needed calcium which is 3 cups a day.

> >

> > > The Eat, Drink and Be Healthy book also says supplements are a

> better

> > > source of calcium for most people. Milk too expensive for what

> you

> > > get and negatives like saturated fat.

> >

> > I do not agree. I get powdered milk inexpensively here and it has

> no

> > saturated fat in it. So for me those issues can be set aside.

> >

> > > You have to admit that your skim milk powder is not even the

best

> > > form.

> >

> > I do not admit that at all. I think it is the best form. I use it

> in

> > gravy with extra virgin olive oil, and basically that is

> concentrated form.

> >

> > > Dr. D'Adamo does recommend whole milk as less inhibitory to

> > > the metabolism if you're going to have milk.

> >

> > The science being?

> > I'd be interested in whether the olive oil with the skim milk is

> even

> > better than the whole milk.

> >

> > > I've been taking a daily multi-vitamin- mineral supplement for

> > > years. The calcium from that plus food sources seems to be

> enough

> > > for me at least based on bone density.

> >

> > It's good you found what works for you. I'm still looking :-))

> >

> > > The standard requirements are

> > > based on a population that guzzles soft drinks and doesn't

> exercise,

> > > both of which increase the need for dietary calcium.

> >

> > Where did you find that claim?

> > It's not true and the research shows otherwise and so do the

> > osteoporosis figures.

> > Research this year also shows the RDA of Vit D is too low to

absorb

> the

> > needed calcium.

> >

> > The research by nutritionists like Adelle suggests that if

> > anything the standard calcium RDA is too low, and the proof is in

> the

> > osteoporosis figures for people who eat a supposedly healthy diet.

> > My type O mother is a case in point. She never drank a soft drink

> or

> > used sugar in her tea or anywhere; she ate a high protein and

> vegetable

> > diet, and garden fruit. She took calcium supplements, but

disliked

> > dairy. Her osteoporosis was the worst I saw in a small person (4

> foot

> > 11) - her hump bent her double and she was in constant pain; she

> had

> > replacement joints and so on. Her exercise was walking - maybe

not

> > vigorous enough but it was daily till she died at 84.

> >

> > I see no reason or evidence to jump to the assumption that RDA

> is

> > based on soda-guzzling couch potatoes, and to thus pretend it has

> no

> > significance. If anything it is set too low at 1000mg a day. An

> > Australian study published this year by the School of Exercise

and

> > Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Burwood, VIC 3125, using

> > carefully controlled diet and exercise suggests a 1200mg minimum.

> >

> > A Nov 2003 study also shows how much rickets there is in Kenyan

> children

> > and how important it was to add milk into their diet to help

the

> meat

> > and veg they ate that was not providing enough calcium to prevent

> > rickets, and that what they got without milk gave only 38% of

what

> they

> > needed. (Those kids have no sodapop or couches.)

> >

> > An Italian study published last year studied " the dietary intakes

> of

> > macro elements (Ca, Mg, Na, K, P) and trace elements (Fe, Zn, Cu,

> Se)

> > from the Italian total diet. The contribution of the most

> representative

> > food groups of the total diet (cereals and cereal products,

> vegetables,

> > fruit, milk and dairy products, meat and meat products, fish) to

> the

> > daily intakes of these nutrients was also evaluated. " ....and

their

> > conclusion .... " The present findings indicated that the dietary

> > patterns of the Italian total diet were generally consistent with

> > current Italian dietary recommendations for both macro and trace

> > elements; except for a major concern for Ca, for which daily

intake

> was

> > only 76% of the needed calcium. "

> >

> > Japanese research shows that the lower RDA in Japan in in

> proportion

> > with the higher one in USA based on average body size of people

> there

> > versus here.

> > They actually measures calcium requirement in older people

using

> a low

> > calcium diet plus supplementation to measure what was actually

> needed by

> > the body.

> > They found the RDA confirmed both for Japan - and by ratio of

> average

> > body size, also the USA one. You can read it for yourself here if

> you like:

> > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?

> cmd=Retrieve & db=pubmed & dopt=Abstract & list_uids=11716189

> >

> > So basically - I challenge the contention that the calcium RDA in

> USA is

> > based on sodapop guzzling couch potatoes. Do you have research to

> > confirm that, or is it just hype from somewhere?

> >

> > Calcium health is too important to use hype as a basis for not

> getting

> > calcium.

> >

> > I'm aware that calcium supplements are available - but they are

not

> > necessarily appropriate as they come all by themselves without

the

> > appropriate absorption factors or important trace elements that

> > accompany calcium in a dietary source.

> >

> > So on following up your contention that the RDA for Ca is too

high,

> I

> > find the opposite is confirmed in solid research the world over.

> > It is not too high and is very likely too low, even for those on

a

> > proper meat and vegetable diet, who do regular exercise.

> >

> > I've learned over and over again, that the source of information

to

> stay

> > healthy is really important. Not sure where you read it, but

> someone's

> > assumption about sodapop is not research, and can lead an awful

lot

> of

> > folks down the garden path.

> >

> > Namaste,

> > Irene

> > --

> > Irene de Villiers, B.Sc; AASCA; MCSSA; D.I.Hom.

> > P.O.Box 4703, Spokane, WA 99220-0703.

> > http://www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html

> > Veterinary Homeopath and Feline Information Counsellor.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Belinda wrote:

> It's not assumption about the sodapop. At least regular soda.

> There is plenty of research that shows that corn strips calcium

> from the bones.

Dear Belinda,

I took you seriously, and searched.

Where please is this " plenty research " ?

I can not find any on an extensive search of the NAtional Medical

Library research articles.

> Archeology shows just when corn entered the

> Native American diet - their bones were weaker and more brittle.

Yes - because they ate less calcium-rich food and ate corn instead. corn

is not a calcium-rich food.

> What is soda but high fructose corn syrup?

I don't dispute that corn syrup is unhealthy as a food substance, but

you said the minimum daily requirement of 1000mg Calcium a day was based

on a diet including lots of it, and *that* was an incorrect assumption.

The only research on corn syrup and calcium I could find is this one:

[Plant Foods Hum Nutr. 1992 Apr;42(2):143-51.

Mineral balances in humans as affected by fructose, high fructose

corn syrup and sucrose. Ivaturi R, Kies C.

Department of Home Economics, Indiana State University Terre Haute

47809.

The utilization of selected minerals when sugars were supplemented

to basal diets was investigated in two separate, laboratory-controlled

human feeding studies. Fructose-fed subjects had higher fecal excretions

of iron and magnesium than did subjects fed sucrose. Apparent iron,

magnesium, calcium, and zinc balances tended to be less positive during

the fructose feeding period as compared to balances during the sucrose

feeding period. Conversely, high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) did not

affect the mineral balances when compared to sucrose feeding. Subjects

fed fructose experienced diarrhea which possibly decreased absorption of

minerals and thus increased fecal mineral losses. No such adverse

effects were noticed when HFCS was fed.}

> How much corn was in your mother's diet?

This was in South Africa, corn was not part of our diet, except in

mid-summer when we ate the occasional ear of white maize. It was not a

favourite with my mother.

> You say she at high

> protein and veggies - was one of those corn? Did she eat corn

> meal? Condiments with corn syrup?

None of the above.

> The culprit may not have been

> too little calcium in the diet, but too much corn.

The culprit was too little calcium.

If it ain't swallowed, it ain't there to absorb or not absorb :-)

Namaste,

Irene

--

Irene de Villiers, B.Sc; AASCA; MCSSA; D.I.Hom.

P.O.Box 4703, Spokane, WA 99220-0703.

http://www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html

Veterinary Homeopath and Feline Information Counsellor.

[Guest guest]

kathy matthews wrote:

> Not human milk produces -- I mean commercial milk producers that are

selling milk.

>

Oh - The joke's on me - I got that back to front didn't I:-)))

Sorry!

If anyone can read something as having an alternative meaning I seem to

have the ability to do it :-)

>>Smaller bones come from exercise and genetics. Large or small you

>>want the mineralization and milk is not the answer, except to

>> milk producers

I'm not convinced milk is not the answer, but I am open to suggestion.

So far nobody suggested a viable alternative in the diet :-)

By viable, I mean an amount from food that can reasonably be consumed daily.

I'd like there to be an alternative :-)))

Namaste,

Irene

--

Irene de Villiers, B.Sc; AASCA; MCSSA; D.I.Hom.

P.O.Box 4703, Spokane, WA 99220-0703.

http://www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html

Veterinary Homeopath and Feline Information Counsellor.