http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you- eat/calcium-and-milk/

http://www.pcrm.org/health/prevmed/dairy_prostate.html

Calcium through dairy are not health foods. Even the Havard School of public health had concluded the following.

"Clearly, although more research is needed, we cannot be confident that high milk or calcium intake is safe."

The World Health organization recommendation for calcium is much less then what the USDA recommends. And the countries with the highest calcium intake have the highest rate of osteoperosis.

http://dailyhitblog.com/2008/05/28/major-opinion-shift-on-ca lcium-needs/

I see so many people in this country sick with cancers, obecity and heart disease and much of it is related to misinformation.

huh.

thanks for the link, ninav.  Everytime I tried to take calcium supplements, they bothered my stomach, so I didn't take them for more than a few days. I guess that's a good thing.

I'll stick with the weight lifting exercises.  I take flinstones every day because I donate blood and need the extra iron, but it's been my belief that you don't need a vitamin or other pills if you eat right and exercise.  My friend has a medical condition and can't really exercise, so it makes sense for her to take various supplements.

Almost all studies conclude that more research is needed and different studies have different results.  You have to take into account where the article was published, how many subjects participated, if it was a double blinded etc.  The sad fact is that each one of us will find the studies that support their own emotional believes and not the best study. (Just like in politics....) So far, dairy has the highest Ca level and is best absorbed.  When determining recommendation for calcium i ntake,  the absorption level is taken into account.  Personally, I determine whether to take a supplement on a daily basis considering my dietary intake on that day. 

Our well water contains calcium carbonate. Is that a good source of calcium? I do eat veggies that contain calcium and take a multi vitamin that has calcium in it. I was wondering if I'm getting enough calcium. In all the info I've read there is nothing mentioned about well water containing calcium. Thank you for your interesting article.

I would like to recommend Strontium supplements as well; although you must take it a few hours after/before you take calcium supplements.  Since I have been taking it everyday, my bone density has increased a large percentage.  I am amazed how Strontium seems to be so effective, and yet so unknown in the health community.  Of course weight lifting is a wonderful addition also.

I don't know what posessed me to try this but it was OK.

Has anyone ever thrown in an egg-shell along with the egg in a protein shake/smoothie? I wonder what the calcium value of that is?

"High intake" of ANY food is probably not recommended.  PCRM isn't saying NOT to take in dairy, only not to overdo it, which is what healthy eating should be all about.  My dad was a really big milk drinker, and often replaced  a meal with a glass of whole milk (not something I would do, or recommend) but it seemed to work for him.  He lived a long, healthy life until he developed complications from melanoma at the age of 89.  Otherwise, a spry and healthy guy all around.

As he got older, he became fearful of developing osteoporosis, so he began to take an unhealthy amount of calcium supplements, which caused several bouts of constipation that required hospitalization.  ***NOTE: THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU OVERDO***  He was also NOT a water drinker, which certainly contributed to these episodes. 

Kale recipes - Sunset magazine is a great source for really good recipes. So I didn't immediately skim over their kale recipes even though kale is such a weird vegetable.  Here are some that I really like. RAW KALE SALAD: 1 large bunch of kale--remove the thick stems and then thinly slice. Add 1/4 C each of lemon juice and olive oil. Massage kale for one minute to soften. This should be a hearty massage. Then add 1 minced garlic clove, a dash of sea or kosher salt, 1/4 C toasted or carmelized walnuts, 1/2 C golden raisins, 1 T finely shredded basil. Let stand for 15 minutes. (This recipe keeps well in the fridge.) CRISPY KALE CHIPS: (I didn't believe this until my sister said these are pretty good.) 4 C (1 large bunch) kale; 1 T extra virgin olive oil, 1 t sea or kosher salt (or substitute cajun spice or lemon pepper). Preheat oven to 375. Line baking sheet with foil. Wash kale and remove stem.  Slice or tear into manageable pieces - 1-1/2 -2 inch 'squares.' Toss in a bowl w/ olive oil until coated, then later onto a baking sheet. Roast for 5 minutes, turn over with tongs, then roast 7-10 minutes more till kale begins to turn brown and crisp. Sprinkle w/ sale. Serve promptly. These are a healthy substitute for more fattening salty crispy things. I had them last night w/ a turkey burger. Pretty good and I felt very virtuous.

If you are at risk of heart disease, it may be better to get your calcium through changes in diet than through supplementation. http://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/news/20110419/calcium-sup plements-may-increase-heart-risk

Talk to your doctor and see if you can't change your diet to get more calcium rather than taking a supplement. My family is at high risk for heart disease, so I pay a great deal of attention to this information. It's tough...

Interesting posts here. I wonder whatever happened to the whole "Coral Calcium" fad that was going on a few years ago. Calcium from Sea Coral was the biggest thing on tv. must have flopped.

Anyways I found out that some people have a difficult time processing vitamin D in the body. Normally it converts to vitamin D2 and vitamin D3 - the latter which is needed to allow the body to absorb calcium into the body. I take a good supply of vitamin D3 every night before i go to bed.

On the flip side i hear that too much calcium is not good for you that it can cause gallstones or kidney stones. I don tknow how true this is.

Maybe someone else might chime in on this with more info.

thanks

Samhainaz,

Yes, excess calcium can cause kidney stones--that's what they're made of. When I was younger I took too much calcium and I ended up with a stone that had to be surgically removed. No fun.

My niece also went through a period where she took too much calcium and she ended up requiring medical treatment for severe constipation.

Calcium IS very important. It is part of the outer lining of our body cells, which helps boost their immunity from invading viruses and such, and supports our full immune system as well. Its presence in our bones and teeth is certainly well known, and it is an important component of other body systems as well. But it's not the only component, nor is it a mineral that can be safely taken in excessive amounts with no consequences. If you think you need supplementation, you should talk to your doctor or other medical practitioner. But don't expect that you can just go nuts with it. There are health consequences of taking any supposedly healthy step too far.

Original Post by: ninav

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you- eat/calcium-and-milk/

http://www.pcrm.org/health/prevmed/dairy_prostate.html

Calcium through dairy are not health foods. Even the Havard School of public health had concluded the following.

"Clearly, although more research is needed, we cannot be confident that high milk or calcium intake is safe."

The World Health organization recommendation for calcium is much less then what the USDA recommends. And the countries with the highest calcium intake have the highest rate of osteoperosis.

http://dailyhitblog.com/2008/05/28/major-opinion-shift-on-ca lcium-needs/

I see so many people in this country sick with cancers, obecity and heart disease and much of it is related to misinformation.

Exactly. In this blog/article, it states all the negatives of calcium from plants/grains yet none from milk. It's acidic to the body.

Original Post by: trancendenz

Original Post by: ninav

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you- eat/calcium-and-milk/

http://www.pcrm.org/health/prevmed/dairy_prostate.html

Calcium through dairy are not health foods. Even the Havard School of public health had concluded the following.

"Clearly, although more research is needed, we cannot be confident that high milk or calcium intake is safe."

The World Health organization recommendation for calcium is much less then what the USDA recommends. And the countries with the highest calcium intake have the highest rate of osteoperosis.

http://dailyhitblog.com/2008/05/28/major-opinion-shift-on-ca lcium-needs/

I see so many people in this country sick with cancers, obecity and heart disease and much of it is related to misinformation.

Exactly. In this blog/article, it states all the negatives of calcium from plants/grains yet none from milk. It's acidic to the body.

I think you have that backwards... calcium from plants is much more effective than calcium from milk.

Original Post by: amiewills

Original Post by: trancendenz

Original Post by: ninav

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you- eat/calcium-and-milk/

http://www.pcrm.org/health/prevmed/dairy_prostate.html

Calcium through dairy are not health foods. Even the Havard School of public health had concluded the following.

"Clearly, although more research is needed, we cannot be confident that high milk or calcium intake is safe."

The World Health organization recommendation for calcium is much less then what the USDA recommends. And the countries with the highest calcium intake have the highest rate of osteoperosis.

http://dailyhitblog.com/2008/05/28/major-opinion-shift-on-ca lcium-needs/

I see so many people in this country sick with cancers, obecity and heart disease and much of it is related to misinformation.

Exactly. In this blog/article, it states all the negatives of calcium from plants/grains yet none from milk. It's acidic to the body.

I think you have that backwards... calcium from plants is much more effective than calcium from milk.

That's exactly what I said: they state all the NEGATIVES of calcium coming from plants/grains (like how oxalic acid binds blah blah blah), but then they state none from milk. The article is like one big dairy industry ad.

Also, I don't drink milk or eat dairy anymore (I'm ova-vegetarian).

People commonly get confused that calcium is the cause of kidney stones since that is what they are made of.  It is actually due from too little Magnesium, which you need to take in almost equal amounts for absorption, like vitamin D.

Supplementation is all about quality.  The cheap vitamins and calcium supplements at the drugs stores are not worth even the ten bucks you pay for.  Getting a food-derived source, over a synthetic pill is key here. Synthetic means fillers, etc.  Brands like Garden for Life and New Chapter are the top brands to pick because of this.  I have a discounted website to buy these if anyone is interested further. 

Ps - don't bother taking supplementation with your morning coffee.  Wait until after, as the diuretic will deplete nutrients out of our body.

The best type of Calcium supplement is Microcrystalline Hydroxyapatite Concentrate, which is 25% calcium, easily absorbed, and provides organic mineral components.  The price is higher, but there is no disadvantage, whereas Calcium Carbonate, at 40%, the cheapest source, is hard to absorb for a person who has a poor digestion (don't be fooled, almost everyone has a poor digestion and just does not realize it) and contain high lead, arsenic and cadium.

So no, the calcium carbonate that is found in water is not a good source of calcium, plus the percentage is probably very low.

The article states that our calcium levels should be lower than what the government says?  I disagree.  Better to be safe than sorry.  As long as Magnesium and Vitamin D are included for proper absorption, taking a supplement is a great idea. Especially over the age of 30.

The problem is dairy and calcium is the pasteurization and homogenization that goes into the raw milk.  Pasteurization kills bacteria that naturally occurs in raw milk, but also denatures the vitamins and minerals.  The source than becomes enriched with added synthetic vitamins and minerals to support claims.

Homogenization strains the fat gobulets into smaller droplets to become "lower fat".  In reality, these fat droplets are now small enough to enter our blood stream, where as the natural, raw milk form (which our grandparents once consumed) pass through our digestion and only the needed vitamins, minerals and fat are absorbed.  This leads to problems where Cholesterol, often targetted as the "bad guy" has to fix by repairing the blood veins and therefor clogging when there are too many problems to be fixed. 

Dairy can be a great source of nutrients - when raw.  People often argue, what about the bacteria - but consider the natural form. What about all the antibodies that occur naturally for safe digestion?  If there is a bacteria from a healthy cow's milk, you can sure bet the natural antibodies are there to battle off the bacteria.  Hence the health of our grandparents (along with more exercise and hard work) exceeding the millions of obese with multiple cardiac problems and disease.

Kelp is the highest source of calcium.  Nothing - not even milk come close to a tenth of the limit.  Dark leafy greens contain a high amount also, and the oxalic acid can be easily removed by lightly steaming the greens before consumption.  For the reason, raw is not always best.

I am a Registered Holistic Student just explaining what I am learning.  I would love to provide more information if needed or debate. ;)

@rawleanne

I have always been interested in the raw vs. processed milk debate and have long been on the fence about the benefits and risks of each, believing that each person should be free to make their own decisions on the matter (rather than the government deciding for us). This paragraph, though: 

"Homogenization strains the fat gobulets into smaller droplets to become "lower fat".  In reality, these fat droplets are now small enough to enter our blood stream, where as the natural, raw milk form (which our grandparents once consumed) pass through our digestion and only the needed vitamins, minerals and fat are absorbed.  This leads to problems where Cholesterol, often targetted as the "bad guy" has to fix by repairing the blood veins and therefor clogging when there are too many problems to be fixed."  

I have never heard before. I was under the impression that homogenization is not done to lower the fat content, but rather, to keep the cream from separating once it has been packaged. Additionally, I have a hard time believing that our bodies would process fat differently based on the size of the fat unless the actual molecular structure of the lipid was altered. Do you have a citation for that? Just curious. 

@ninav

I think high or exclusive intake of any food is dangerous, but to demonize milk based on a little bit of research that says it's no good really throws out the long human history of its consumption which started during the original agricultural revolution... around 10,000 BC. That's right. 12,000 some odd years ago. 

You say, "I see so many people in this country sick with cancers, obecity and heart disease and much of it is related to misinformation." But you forget that people in much of the world die of starvation, violence, and other problems associated with poverty... everyone has to die somehow and by living past some problems you will naturally encounter others. We in the developed world are lucky to be able to eat to satiety, but with an overabundance of cheap processed food and advertising that tells us to always be consuming, over-consumption is the norm and the true cause of the problems you described. 

Personally, I think milk is something of a miracle. As a lactating mother, I have gained and even deeper appreciation for it's nurturing qualities. Think about it--milk is nutritionally complete enough that it contains everything an infant of any mammalian species needs for the first portion of its life, and though those requirements may vary among us, the similarities are overwhelming. The fact that we humans have the ability to ingest the milk of other species is equally fascinating and has proved advantageous to our survival. I think that as a whole food, carefully integrated into a healthy diet, milk and dairy products certainly have a place. I will admit, however, that the dairy industry certainly loves to play up their importance and understate their problems... which is why I think that balanced approach, a nod to human history, and a healthy debate are all important! 

ok i dont understand all of this i was just surprised that the first health foods hinder the bodies absorption of calcium...does this mean to eat yogurt say as a snack with no other foods to get the best calcium from it,  or stick with only cheese snacks, i see from that first part that when i eat high calcium foods i also eat those with that acid cause i eat so much spinach and i always eat peanut butter in my yogurt, guess i am with the group that says yes to calcium

Original Post by: lyndi_perry

@rawleanne

I have always been interested in the raw vs. processed milk debate and have long been on the fence about the benefits and risks of each, believing that each person should be free to make their own decisions on the matter (rather than the government deciding for us). This paragraph, though: 

"Homogenization strains the fat gobulets into smaller droplets to become "lower fat".  In reality, these fat droplets are now small enough to enter our blood stream, where as the natural, raw milk form (which our grandparents once consumed) pass through our digestion and only the needed vitamins, minerals and fat are absorbed.  This leads to problems where Cholesterol, often targetted as the "bad guy" has to fix by repairing the blood veins and therefor clogging when there are too many problems to be fixed."  

I have never heard before. I was under the impression that homogenization is not done to lower the fat content, but rather, to keep the cream from separating once it has been packaged. Additionally, I have a hard time believing that our bodies would process fat differently based on the size of the fat unless the actual molecular structure of the lipid was altered. Do you have a citation for that? Just curious. 

@ninav

I think high or exclusive intake of any food is dangerous, but to demonize milk based on a little bit of research that says it's no good really throws out the long human history of its consumption which started during the original agricultural revolution... around 10,000 BC. That's right. 12,000 some odd years ago. 

You say, "I see so many people in this country sick with cancers, obecity and heart disease and much of it is related to misinformation." But you forget that people in much of the world die of starvation, violence, and other problems associated with poverty... everyone has to die somehow and by living past some problems you will naturally encounter others. We in the developed world are lucky to be able to eat to satiety, but with an overabundance of cheap processed food and advertising that tells us to always be consuming, over-consumption is the norm and the true cause of the problems you described. 

 

Personally, I think milk is something of a miracle. As a lactating mother, I have gained and even deeper appreciation for it's nurturing qualities. Think about it--milk is nutritionally complete enough that it contains everything an infant of any mammalian species needs for the first portion of its life, and though those requirements may vary among us, the similarities are overwhelming. The fact that we humans have the ability to ingest the milk of other species is equally fascinating and has proved advantageous to our survival. I think that as a whole food, carefully integrated into a healthy diet, milk and dairy products certainly have a place. I will admit, however, that the dairy industry certainly loves to play up their importance and understate their problems... which is why I think that balanced approach, a nod to human history, and a healthy debate are all important! 

Yes, it is a miracle: to babies of the mammal kingdom. If cow's milk is so wonderful for humans, then why do humans stop producing milk for their children after a certain age/many of our bodies lose the lactase required to digest lactose? The answer is because cow's milk is for calves and human's milk is for babies.

We DON'T have the ability to ingest other species' milk, unless you are white or the minority of minorities who are able to (and if you are Native American you are 100% lactose intolerant). This doesn't even include the allergies to milk!

*not mammal kingdom, I meant mammal class.

Just because it's bad for one part of the population doesn't make it bad for all of us. A person who is allergic to peanuts should definitely not eat peanuts, but for others they can be quite healthy. 

One of the beautiful thing about being human is our ability to use our brain to get food out of just about anywhere. People in the desert drink camels' and goats' milk and it takes care of much of their nutrition and provides hydration for them. Would you tell them that it causes cancer, doesn't supply adequate amounts of absorbable calcium, and is overall very bad for their health? 

I'm talking about balance. Demonizing a food that has been a traditional part of some humans' diets for millennia is simply not a useful way of looking at nutrition. I have the ability to eat milk, it provides healthy nutrients that I can use, and I really quite enjoy it. As part of a balanced diet, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. 

Original Post by: lyndi_perry

Just because it's bad for one part of the population doesn't make it bad for all of us. A person who is allergic to peanuts should definitely not eat peanuts, but for others they can be quite healthy. 

One of the beautiful thing about being human is our ability to use our brain to get food out of just about anywhere. People in the desert drink camels' and goats' milk and it takes care of much of their nutrition and provides hydration for them. Would you tell them that it causes cancer, doesn't supply adequate amounts of absorbable calcium, and is overall very bad for their health? 

I'm talking about balance. Demonizing a food that has been a traditional part of some humans' diets for millennia is simply not a useful way of looking at nutrition. I have the ability to eat milk, it provides healthy nutrients that I can use, and I really quite enjoy it. As part of a balanced diet, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. 

You said: The fact that we humans have the ability to ingest the milk of other species is equally fascinating and has proved advantageous to our survival.

My point was that "we humans" as a species DO NOT have the ability to ingest since the majority of people on earth are NOT WHITE. And as an omnivore, yes, we can eat many things including raw meat, but that does not make it healthy or advantageous for us to do so.

Blackstrap molasses is a good source of calcium and as a bonus it is also high in iron.  It is a good idea for any vegetarian (baring severe diabetics) to eat a tablespoon or two a day.  I take a tablespoon with my breakfast every morning and a second at night if I am shy in either of those nutrients.

If you are going to argue semantics, I think you should avoid clogging a nutrition forum. My obvious point is that, for many, it is advantageous to consume dairy, as evidenced by the fact that we are able to at all. Why would we suddenly develop that trait and keep it if it wasn't advantageous? 

In addition to "white people," Middle Eastern populations and some specific African tribes (Tutsi, Fulani) and Asian populations (Kazakhs, Mongols, etc.) can tolerate some levels of lactose very well. And for those who can't, we humans have cleverly relied on bacteria to break down lactose (as in yogurt and some cheeses) since about 5000 BC, which not only acted to preserve the milk, but also allowed a wider portion of people to partake of the stuff. Lactose levels also vary by animal, so many people who cannot drink cow's milk have no problem with goat's milk. If you google "lactose intolerance" you will come up with a wiki on the subject that is very interesting.

I'm telling you, absolutism is not very useful. I think if you are confused about how and what to eat you should look at your history and cultural tradition to help you. 

recent recommendations state there is no benefit in exceeding sevenhundredfifty milligrams of calcium

I like milk cause it makes me full and keeps cereal yummy.

Ooh, and yogurt is good too.

Ooh, and ice cream!

And omg cheese...

Yeah, milk is yummy. Moderation is always the key in anything.

This explains why I get very specific cravings for broccoli every once in a while!  Then I eat it and my mood evens out.  No wonder!

@ lyndie, I'm sorry for not describing that better!  I was in a rush for work during my impulsed post. 

"Another concern is that these milks are processed products.  This natural white substance that comes from cows is heated, treated and diluted to make even the "normal" homogenized, pasteurized milk.  It loses some vitamin E, biotin, B12, and other vitamins with pasteurization; often vitamin A and irradiated vitamin D are then added to fortify this food, which some erroneously consider a drink.  Homogenization is possibly the biggest concern in milk.  It basically involves the conversion of the milk fat into small globules through the use of high pressure so that it does not separate as it normally will do when it sits.  It is possible that this process interferes with the body's ability to digest and utilize this fat in homogenized milk. The increase in cardiovascular disease has been correlated with the rise in the use of homogenized milk; however this relationship remains unproven and further demiological study is needed."

Staying Healthy with Nutrition - Elson M. Haas, MD

"Homogenization: This is the process whereby the fat particles of cream are strained through tiny pores under great pressure.  The resulting fat particles are so small that they stay in suspension rather than rise to the top of the milk.  This makes the fat and cholesterol more susceptible to rancidity and oxidation, and some research indicates that homogenized fats may contribute to heart disease.  The media's constant attack on saturated fats is extremely suspect."

Hmm. That was from my notes.  I was sure that there was more on homogenization in the blood stream but that may have been a discussion.  I will ask tomorrow in class and find the sources for you.

Another discussion we had I recall was the improvement in drinking goats milk over cows milk, if raw is too hard to gather.  Goats milk is the closest formula to our milk, is what I can recall.

Hope that helps!

So yes my mistake! I did not mean to say it was less fat but that it indeed strains the fat so it will not be seperated when sitting.  Now that I keep thinking back I am certain it was discussion and I can remember who said it.  I hope that he has a citation for it tomorrow, :)

Yes Ive heard that animal protein in Meat actually leeches calcium from the bones. The highest number meat eaters are the countries that have the highest cases of osteoporosis which is America,UK, Australia and NZ 

Original Post by: lyndi_perry

If you are going to argue semantics, I think you should avoid clogging a nutrition forum. My obvious point is that, for many, it is advantageous to consume dairy, as evidenced by the fact that we are able to at all. Why would we suddenly develop that trait and keep it if it wasn't advantageous? 

In addition to "white people," Middle Eastern populations and some specific African tribes (Tutsi, Fulani) and Asian populations (Kazakhs, Mongols, etc.) can tolerate some levels of lactose very well. And for those who can't, we humans have cleverly relied on bacteria to break down lactose (as in yogurt and some cheeses) since about 5000 BC, which not only acted to preserve the milk, but also allowed a wider portion of people to partake of the stuff. Lactose levels also vary by animal, so many people who cannot drink cow's milk have no problem with goat's milk. If you google "lactose intolerance" you will come up with a wiki on the subject that is very interesting.

I'm telling you, absolutism is not very useful. I think if you are confused about how and what to eat you should look at your history and cultural tradition to help you. 

Once again, you don't know your facts. The Tutsi in Africa don't drink milk. They process their milk into yogurt so it is more easily digestible. Many who cannot drink milk can eat yogurt and cheese.

http://www.pcrm.org/health/veginfo/lactose_intolerance.html

I think if I wanted to eat/live historically, I would also want a high infant mortality rate and die at age 50. Eat how you want, but don't try to argue that milk is good because people ate it for ages. The fact is, they didn't, and they currenlty don't unless it's highly processed, for the most part (some exceptions of course).

Original Post by: lyndi_perry

If you are going to argue semantics, I think you should avoid clogging a nutrition forum. My obvious point is that, for many, it is advantageous to consume dairy, as evidenced by the fact that we are able to at all. Why would we suddenly develop that trait and keep it if it wasn't advantageous? 

In addition to "white people," Middle Eastern populations and some specific African tribes (Tutsi, Fulani) and Asian populations (Kazakhs, Mongols, etc.) can tolerate some levels of lactose very well. And for those who can't, we humans have cleverly relied on bacteria to break down lactose (as in yogurt and some cheeses) since about 5000 BC, which not only acted to preserve the milk, but also allowed a wider portion of people to partake of the stuff. Lactose levels also vary by animal, so many people who cannot drink cow's milk have no problem with goat's milk. If you google "lactose intolerance" you will come up with a wiki on the subject that is very interesting.

I'm telling you, absolutism is not very useful. I think if you are confused about how and what to eat you should look at your history and cultural tradition to help you. 

FINALLY, it is NOT semantics. It's called facts. I think you should avoid clogging a blog with your opinions about being able to digest milk. The evidence that we are able to consume is not evidence just because you can drink it and get the runs. Our bodies were not designed to consume milk after a certain point. Those 25% of the population that do are the MINORITY.

Original Post by: samhainaz

Interesting posts here. I wonder whatever happened to the whole "Coral Calcium" fad that was going on a few years ago. Calcium from Sea Coral was the biggest thing on tv. must have flopped.

 

Anyways I found out that some people have a difficult time processing vitamin D in the body. Normally it converts to vitamin D2 and vitamin D3 - the latter which is needed to allow the body to absorb calcium into the body. I take a good supply of vitamin D3 every night before i go to bed.

On the flip side i hear that too much calcium is not good for you that it can cause gallstones or kidney stones. I don tknow how true this is.

Maybe someone else might chime in on this with more info.

 

thanks

 

Ya , I was wondering about the coral calcium thing too. I remember running out and buying some.

Interesting about the VitD, I'll have to research that.

Most stones are made up of Calcium among other waste products, but not all have calcium. However, if you don't brush your teeth well them the plaque that gets up into your gums can make it into your blood stream, traveling through your artery's which leads to heart disease. Therefore, I believe that theoretically the 70% of excreted calcium could very well end up building up stoned in our kidneys and gallbladder.

Oh, and I forgot to ask.... What about the newly published studies stating that calcium supplement pills (not calcium fortified food) is believed to cause a 30% increase for risk of heart disease in women?????

Original Post by: trancendenz

Original Post by: lyndi_perry

@rawleanne

I have always been interested in the raw vs. processed milk debate and have long been on the fence about the benefits and risks of each, believing that each person should be free to make their own decisions on the matter (rather than the government deciding for us). This paragraph, though: 

"Homogenization strains the fat gobulets into smaller droplets to become "lower fat".  In reality, these fat droplets are now small enough to enter our blood stream, where as the natural, raw milk form (which our grandparents once consumed) pass through our digestion and only the needed vitamins, minerals and fat are absorbed.  This leads to problems where Cholesterol, often targetted as the "bad guy" has to fix by repairing the blood veins and therefor clogging when there are too many problems to be fixed."  

I have never heard before. I was under the impression that homogenization is not done to lower the fat content, but rather, to keep the cream from separating once it has been packaged. Additionally, I have a hard time believing that our bodies would process fat differently based on the size of the fat unless the actual molecular structure of the lipid was altered. Do you have a citation for that? Just curious. 

@ninav

I think high or exclusive intake of any food is dangerous, but to demonize milk based on a little bit of research that says it's no good really throws out the long human history of its consumption which started during the original agricultural revolution... around 10,000 BC. That's right. 12,000 some odd years ago. 

You say, "I see so many people in this country sick with cancers, obecity and heart disease and much of it is related to misinformation." But you forget that people in much of the world die of starvation, violence, and other problems associated with poverty... everyone has to die somehow and by living past some problems you will naturally encounter others. We in the developed world are lucky to be able to eat to satiety, but with an overabundance of cheap processed food and advertising that tells us to always be consuming, over-consumption is the norm and the true cause of the problems you described. 

 

Personally, I think milk is something of a miracle. As a lactating mother, I have gained and even deeper appreciation for it's nurturing qualities. Think about it--milk is nutritionally complete enough that it contains everything an infant of any mammalian species needs for the first portion of its life, and though those requirements may vary among us, the similarities are overwhelming. The fact that we humans have the ability to ingest the milk of other species is equally fascinating and has proved advantageous to our survival. I think that as a whole food, carefully integrated into a healthy diet, milk and dairy products certainly have a place. I will admit, however, that the dairy industry certainly loves to play up their importance and understate their problems... which is why I think that balanced approach, a nod to human history, and a healthy debate are all important! 

Yes, it is a miracle: to babies of the mammal kingdom. If cow's milk is so wonderful for humans, then why do humans stop producing milk for their children after a certain age/many of our bodies lose the lactase required to digest lactose? The answer is because cow's milk is for calves and human's milk is for babies.

We DON'T have the ability to ingest other species' milk, unless you are white or the minority of minorities who are able to (and if you are Native American you are 100% lactose intolerant). This doesn't even include the allergies to milk!

GOING BACK TO WERE THIS STARTED:

"I think high or exclusive intake of any food is dangerous, but to demonize milk based on a little bit of research that says it's no good really throws out the long human history of its consumption which started during the original agricultural revolution... around 10,000 BC. That's right. 12,000 some odd years ago. 

You say, "I see so many people in this country sick with cancers, obesity and heart disease and much of it is related to misinformation." But you forget that people in much of the world die of starvation, violence, and other problems associated with poverty... everyone has to die somehow and by living past some problems you will naturally encounter others. We in the developed world are lucky to be able to eat to satiety, but with an overabundance of cheap processed food and advertising that tells us to always be consuming, over-consumption is the norm and the true cause of the problems you described. "

"We DON'T have the ability to ingest other species milk, unless you are white or the minority of minorities who are able to (and if you are Native American you are 100% lactose intolerant). This doesn't even include the allergies to milk!"

While it is true that looking back into the ages our life expectancy and the number of living children one has has risen significantly, you MUST look back into the ages because that is what science, medicine, and the theory of evolution is based on.

The fact is 25% DO have the ability to ingest milk. Minority or not, it is fact that it is good for this 25% (in moderation of course, skim for me). Also, the yogurt argument- that only minimally reduces lactose, therefore they are developing and will one day through evolution have a higher tolerance for lactose. Also, they are making yogurt because of its nutritional value.

BTW, My son has milk allergy, not lactose intolerance, they say that you grow out of the allergy usually around the age of 3-5, where as lactose intolerance is developed with age.

At the end of the day being able to eat something that the majority cannot doesn't make it bad, although the method by which we make it possible these days are. And if you delve deep enough I'm sure there are berries, animals, and other products that only a minority groups can consume and serves as a staple of their society and has nutritional value that we could not.

Oh, and most people know by now that soy has been linked to breast cancer in women, just say'n!

oops, I didn't mean to quote, just comment :/

I guess...taking calcium through the means of dietary foods is a good way of maximizing calcium intake rather than relying on calcium supplements. These supplements force the body to absorb calcium which increases the calcium level above normal thus resulting into some side effects.