Re: Animal protein = weak bones in women?

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

http://www.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/133/3/862S goes into much detail about this and concludes that no conclusions can be made in regards to animal protein in and of itself due to a variety of interacting dietary factors. However, the take home message seems to be to bump up our calcium intake and this negates calcium loss due to dietary protein. I suspect about 1500 mg/day of calcium is about right. This is 1.5 X the current RDA.

I'll find out soon if I'm right. I take 1000 mg/calcium per day so my diet probably bumps my intake up to around 1500 mg/day. I also eat a high animal protein diet. My last DEXA showed mild osteoporosis. This was about a year ago. I have another DEXA scheduled this month. Care to place a bet?

Nerissa

T <pct35768@...> wrote:

Oh yes, they must be wild-eyed vegans, right? That is why the numbers indicate that?

=-=-=-=-==--==-=-=--==-=--=-=

Ann Nutr Metab. 2005 Aug 4;49(5):312-318 [Epub ahead of print]

Related Articles,

Links

Department of Epidemiology, German Institute of Human Nutrition Potsdam-Rehbrucke, Nuthetal, Germany.

"Results: After multivariate adjustment, high intake of animal protein was associated with decreased BUA values (beta = -0.03; p = 0.010) whereas high vegetable protein intake was related to an increased BUA (beta = 0.11; p = 0.007). The effect of dietary animal protein on BUA was modified by calcium intake. Conclusion: High consumption of protein from animal origin may be unfavourable, whereas a higher vegetable protein intake may be beneficial for bone health. Our results strengthen the hypothesis that high calcium intake combined with adequate protein intake based on a high ratio of vegetable to animal protein may be protective against osteoporosis."

PMID: 16088096

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve & db=pubmed & dopt=Abstract & list_uids=16088096

=-=-=-=--=-=-=--=-=

T.

pct35768@...

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

http://www.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/133/3/862S goes into much detail about this and concludes that no conclusions can be made in regards to animal protein in and of itself due to a variety of interacting dietary factors. However, the take home message seems to be to bump up our calcium intake and this negates calcium loss due to dietary protein. I suspect about 1500 mg/day of calcium is about right. This is 1.5 X the current RDA.

I'll find out soon if I'm right. I take 1000 mg/calcium per day so my diet probably bumps my intake up to around 1500 mg/day. I also eat a high animal protein diet. My last DEXA showed mild osteoporosis. This was about a year ago. I have another DEXA scheduled this month. Care to place a bet?

Nerissa

T <pct35768@...> wrote:

Oh yes, they must be wild-eyed vegans, right? That is why the numbers indicate that?

=-=-=-=-==--==-=-=--==-=--=-=

Ann Nutr Metab. 2005 Aug 4;49(5):312-318 [Epub ahead of print]

Related Articles,

Links

Department of Epidemiology, German Institute of Human Nutrition Potsdam-Rehbrucke, Nuthetal, Germany.

"Results: After multivariate adjustment, high intake of animal protein was associated with decreased BUA values (beta = -0.03; p = 0.010) whereas high vegetable protein intake was related to an increased BUA (beta = 0.11; p = 0.007). The effect of dietary animal protein on BUA was modified by calcium intake. Conclusion: High consumption of protein from animal origin may be unfavourable, whereas a higher vegetable protein intake may be beneficial for bone health. Our results strengthen the hypothesis that high calcium intake combined with adequate protein intake based on a high ratio of vegetable to animal protein may be protective against osteoporosis."

PMID: 16088096

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve & db=pubmed & dopt=Abstract & list_uids=16088096

=-=-=-=--=-=-=--=-=

T.

pct35768@...

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Hi Nerissa:

If you don't mind my asking, what is your BMI? Obese people have

massive bones because the body needs them to hold up their weight and

adjusts accordingly. People with lower than average BMIs will have

less bone mass (like people who have been in orbit for months) simply

because the body realizes it doesn't need so much bone and sheds what

it figures it does not need. Likewise exercise stimulates the body

to increase bone mass because it figures it needs to do so to handle

the higher physical stresses that are occurring.

Unfortunately DXA does NOT measure bone **density**. It measures

bone **mass** and makes no allowance for the fact that BMIs, and

therefore bone sizes, vary.

So a low DXA score may or may not mean that you have porous bones.

If you are very slim it more likely means you have solid but small

bones. While small bones are somewhat weaker than large bones it is

POROSITY that really matters for bone strength, hence the term

osteoPOROSIS. DXA does not measure that. This is an issue that has

been previously discussed here fairly extensively. Those discussions

are in the archives.

In my case as an example, the T and Z scores calculated by DXA

software compare me with someone who is not just thirty pounds over

weight, but thirty PERCENT heavier than I am. And I am still not yet

down to what is probably my ideal CRON weight. Obviously someone my

height who weighs thirty percent more than I do will have larger

bones. They may or may not have denser bones.

It is far from clear to me that DXA tests are helpful for people

whose BMIs are appreciably different from the population average.

Indeed these tests may be resulting in slim people being prescribed

drugs they would be better off not to take.

That said, some exercise and modest calcium and vitamin D supplements

are likely a good idea. But excessive calcium can be dangerous,

including, I believe, for calcification in the arteries.

Rodney.

> Oh yes, they must be wild-eyed vegans, right? That is why the

numbers indicate that?

>

> =-=-=-=-==--==-=-=--==-=--=-=

>

> Ann Nutr Metab. 2005 Aug 4;49(5):312-318 [Epub ahead of print]

Related Articles, Links

>

>

>

>

> Department of Epidemiology, German Institute of Human Nutrition

Potsdam-Rehbrucke, Nuthetal, Germany.

>

> " Results: After multivariate adjustment, high intake of animal

protein was associated with decreased BUA values (beta = -0.03; p =

0.010) whereas high vegetable protein intake was related to an

increased BUA (beta = 0.11; p = 0.007). The effect of dietary animal

protein on BUA was modified by calcium intake. Conclusion: High

consumption of protein from animal origin may be unfavourable,

whereas a higher vegetable protein intake may be beneficial for bone

health. Our results strengthen the hypothesis that high calcium

intake combined with adequate protein intake based on a high ratio of

vegetable to animal protein may be protective against osteoporosis. "

>

> PMID: 16088096

>

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

cmd=Retrieve & db=pubmed & dopt=Abstract & list_uids=16088096

>

> =-=-=-=--=-=-=--=-=

>

> T.

> pct35768@y...

>

> __________________________________________________

>

[Guest guest]

Nerissia,

>http://www.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/133/3/862S goes into much detail about this and >concludes that no conclusions can be made in regards to animal protein in and of itself due >to a variety of interacting dietary factors.

But I don't believe this individual's analysis. Furthermore, it appears that she is approaching protein from a "net sulfur production" standpoint, which is ssssoooooo 1982.....

I don't care about sulfur production. I care about cutting edge endocrinology. I care about essential amino acid mediated osteocyte/blast senescence. Could it be that essential amino acid enriched protein ages your osteocytes?

I won't believe any individual promulgating this antiquated "net acid production" perspective on bone health. I guess that makes me quite the recalcitrant young man?

T. pct35768@...

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Nerissia,

>http://www.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/133/3/862S goes into much detail about this and >concludes that no conclusions can be made in regards to animal protein in and of itself due >to a variety of interacting dietary factors.

But I don't believe this individual's analysis. Furthermore, it appears that she is approaching protein from a "net sulfur production" standpoint, which is ssssoooooo 1982.....

I don't care about sulfur production. I care about cutting edge endocrinology. I care about essential amino acid mediated osteocyte/blast senescence. Could it be that essential amino acid enriched protein ages your osteocytes?

I won't believe any individual promulgating this antiquated "net acid production" perspective on bone health. I guess that makes me quite the recalcitrant young man?

T. pct35768@...

__________________________________________________