Should Pregnant Women Take Calcium Supplements to Lower Lead Levels?

Should Pregnant Women Take Calcium Supplements to Lower Lead Levels?
4.81 (96.13%) 31 votes

The effects of sodium and calcium intake on blood lead levels in pregnant and breastfeeding women.

Discuss
Republish

Below is an approximation of this video’s audio content. To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring, watch the above video.

Although our skeleton “has predominantly been considered a storage site for sequestering absorbed lead, bone is not simply an inert storage site. Once deposited in bone, lead can be remobilized from bone” back into the bloodstream if we lose bone—for example, osteoporosis. Even just normal menopause can do it—rising lead levels as our bones start to lose their integrity. But, it’s the “[m]obilization of long-term stores of lead from [the] maternal skeleton…during pregnancy and lactation” that’s the biggest concern. So, to maintain maternal lead levels “as low as possible” during this critical period, we need to minimize bone loss.

How do we do that? Well, “habitual excessive [salt] intake could be a factor in promoting bone loss.” So, is there a “[r]elationship between maternal sodium intake and blood lead [levels] during pregnancy”? We didn’t know, until this study. They did find that higher salt intake was associated with higher lead levels, but only for women who were getting less than 840mg of calcium a day. This suggests “that adequate [calcium] with low [sodium] intake may play a beneficial role in decreasing the blood

concentration in pregnant women.”

“Higher calcium intake [has been] associated with lower blood lead concentrations [during] pregnancy.” But, you don’t know if it’s cause and effect—unless you put it to the test.

What if you gave women calcium supplements? We explored previously how milk may actually make things worse. But what about just straight calcium, especially for women with low calcium intake? These poor African women, getting only 350mg of calcium a day—just 35% of the 1,000-milligram RDA. Let’s step in and give them a whopping 1,500 milligrams of calcium a day. That will protect their bones—how did they ever get along without us? Without the calcium, just getting 350 milligrams of calcium a day in their diet, they lost some bone in their spine and hip. But, the group we gave, in our wisdom, 1,500 milligrams of calcium a day, lost even more bone! “Those women who had received the calcium…supplement[s] had a significantly lower bone mineral [density] at the hip,” and greater bone loss in the spine and wrists. Oops.

What happened? It looks like we messed up their body’s natural adaptation. Remember? They were only eating 350 milligrams of calcium a day. So, their body wasn’t stupid, and was maximizing absorption, minimizing loss, and then, we step in with calcium pills, and undermine the whole process—turn off those adaptations, leave their body thinking they were always going to get these massive doses. And then, when the study stopped, they went into major calcium deficit, and had to steal more from their bones. The researchers went back later, hoping they’d catch back up, and while the women lucky enough to have ended up in the placebo group bounced back, those given the extra calcium continued to suffer the effects.

What about in Western women, though—already taking in over 1,000 milligrams a day? Would giving them an extra 1,200 milligrams a day cut down on some of that bone flux? Yes, it did seem to cut down on bone resorption by about 16%, “and, thus, may constitute a practical intervention to prevent [the] transient skeletal loss associated with childbearing”—which could release any lead trapped there. But, you don’t know, until you put it to the test.

This is a different paper from the same study. The researchers measured what was happening to their lead levels, and that drop in bone borrowing led to a drop in lead release, and so, may help lower exposure to the fetus, as well as the infant, as the benefits continue through breastfeeding. Okay. But, these were women living in Mexico City, who may have been exposed to lead-glazed ceramics, with lead levels approaching 10. What about for women with lead levels closer to the current U.S. average—under 5? We didn’t know, until you put it to the test.

Well, half the breastfeeding women were randomized to take 500 milligrams of extra calcium a day. Their lead levels started out the same during pregnancy, but shot up during breastfeeding, as presumably some of the lead was released from their bones. But, that was in the regular, non-supplemented group. In the group that got the 500-a-day calcium supplement, there was no spike in lead in their bloodstream, providing “evidence that calcium supplementation during [breastfeeding] may be effective in limiting mobilization of lead from bone stores, thus reducing the risk of lead transfer to the nursing infant through [breast] milk.”

Now, breast is still best, regardless. Supplementation or not, “the risks are outweighed by the benefits of [breastfeeding].” But, calcium supplementation may help reduce any risk even further. Of course, better to not build up lead in your bones in the first place. As a famous occupational medicine paper put it a half century ago, yes, there’s all methods of dietary interventions, but there’s only one way, “and one way only,” to prevent lead poisoning: not get poisoned in the first place—anything else just “divert[s] attention” from treating the underlying cause.

For other toxic heavy metals, like mercury, for example, that would mean advising women “to avoid the consumption of [fish-that-eat-other-] fish during pregnancy and when breastfeeding to decrease” mercury levels in breast milk. In fact, maybe even before pregnancy, “women of child-bearing age,” period—so you don’t build up mercury in your body in the first place. For lead, that means not living next to a smelter plant, avoiding smoking.

Now, there’s one other way to detox your body of lead to protect some of your future children, but it’s not ideal. Remember that menopause study, where postmenopausal women had higher blood lead levels than premenopausal women? Well, even higher still were postmenopausal women who never had children. “The postmenopausal increase in lead levels was less in women with prior pregnancies,” presumably because they had already detoxed some of their lead into their children.

Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.

Image credit: clarkmaxwell via flickr. Image has been modified.

Motion graphics by Avocado Video

Below is an approximation of this video’s audio content. To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring, watch the above video.

Although our skeleton “has predominantly been considered a storage site for sequestering absorbed lead, bone is not simply an inert storage site. Once deposited in bone, lead can be remobilized from bone” back into the bloodstream if we lose bone—for example, osteoporosis. Even just normal menopause can do it—rising lead levels as our bones start to lose their integrity. But, it’s the “[m]obilization of long-term stores of lead from [the] maternal skeleton…during pregnancy and lactation” that’s the biggest concern. So, to maintain maternal lead levels “as low as possible” during this critical period, we need to minimize bone loss.

How do we do that? Well, “habitual excessive [salt] intake could be a factor in promoting bone loss.” So, is there a “[r]elationship between maternal sodium intake and blood lead [levels] during pregnancy”? We didn’t know, until this study. They did find that higher salt intake was associated with higher lead levels, but only for women who were getting less than 840mg of calcium a day. This suggests “that adequate [calcium] with low [sodium] intake may play a beneficial role in decreasing the blood

concentration in pregnant women.”

“Higher calcium intake [has been] associated with lower blood lead concentrations [during] pregnancy.” But, you don’t know if it’s cause and effect—unless you put it to the test.

What if you gave women calcium supplements? We explored previously how milk may actually make things worse. But what about just straight calcium, especially for women with low calcium intake? These poor African women, getting only 350mg of calcium a day—just 35% of the 1,000-milligram RDA. Let’s step in and give them a whopping 1,500 milligrams of calcium a day. That will protect their bones—how did they ever get along without us? Without the calcium, just getting 350 milligrams of calcium a day in their diet, they lost some bone in their spine and hip. But, the group we gave, in our wisdom, 1,500 milligrams of calcium a day, lost even more bone! “Those women who had received the calcium…supplement[s] had a significantly lower bone mineral [density] at the hip,” and greater bone loss in the spine and wrists. Oops.

What happened? It looks like we messed up their body’s natural adaptation. Remember? They were only eating 350 milligrams of calcium a day. So, their body wasn’t stupid, and was maximizing absorption, minimizing loss, and then, we step in with calcium pills, and undermine the whole process—turn off those adaptations, leave their body thinking they were always going to get these massive doses. And then, when the study stopped, they went into major calcium deficit, and had to steal more from their bones. The researchers went back later, hoping they’d catch back up, and while the women lucky enough to have ended up in the placebo group bounced back, those given the extra calcium continued to suffer the effects.

What about in Western women, though—already taking in over 1,000 milligrams a day? Would giving them an extra 1,200 milligrams a day cut down on some of that bone flux? Yes, it did seem to cut down on bone resorption by about 16%, “and, thus, may constitute a practical intervention to prevent [the] transient skeletal loss associated with childbearing”—which could release any lead trapped there. But, you don’t know, until you put it to the test.

This is a different paper from the same study. The researchers measured what was happening to their lead levels, and that drop in bone borrowing led to a drop in lead release, and so, may help lower exposure to the fetus, as well as the infant, as the benefits continue through breastfeeding. Okay. But, these were women living in Mexico City, who may have been exposed to lead-glazed ceramics, with lead levels approaching 10. What about for women with lead levels closer to the current U.S. average—under 5? We didn’t know, until you put it to the test.

Well, half the breastfeeding women were randomized to take 500 milligrams of extra calcium a day. Their lead levels started out the same during pregnancy, but shot up during breastfeeding, as presumably some of the lead was released from their bones. But, that was in the regular, non-supplemented group. In the group that got the 500-a-day calcium supplement, there was no spike in lead in their bloodstream, providing “evidence that calcium supplementation during [breastfeeding] may be effective in limiting mobilization of lead from bone stores, thus reducing the risk of lead transfer to the nursing infant through [breast] milk.”

Now, breast is still best, regardless. Supplementation or not, “the risks are outweighed by the benefits of [breastfeeding].” But, calcium supplementation may help reduce any risk even further. Of course, better to not build up lead in your bones in the first place. As a famous occupational medicine paper put it a half century ago, yes, there’s all methods of dietary interventions, but there’s only one way, “and one way only,” to prevent lead poisoning: not get poisoned in the first place—anything else just “divert[s] attention” from treating the underlying cause.

For other toxic heavy metals, like mercury, for example, that would mean advising women “to avoid the consumption of [fish-that-eat-other-] fish during pregnancy and when breastfeeding to decrease” mercury levels in breast milk. In fact, maybe even before pregnancy, “women of child-bearing age,” period—so you don’t build up mercury in your body in the first place. For lead, that means not living next to a smelter plant, avoiding smoking.

Now, there’s one other way to detox your body of lead to protect some of your future children, but it’s not ideal. Remember that menopause study, where postmenopausal women had higher blood lead levels than premenopausal women? Well, even higher still were postmenopausal women who never had children. “The postmenopausal increase in lead levels was less in women with prior pregnancies,” presumably because they had already detoxed some of their lead into their children.

Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.

Image credit: clarkmaxwell via flickr. Image has been modified.

Motion graphics by Avocado Video

Doctor's Note

In case you missed the last video, The Rise in Blood Lead Levels at Pregnancy & Menopause offers some background.

The milk-making-things-worse video I mention is How to Lower Lead Levels with Diet: Breakfast, Whole Grains, Milk, Tofu?

Note: whole-food sources of calcium may be preferable, as I document in my video Are Calcium Supplements Safe?

More on pregnancy detox in:

If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my videos for free by clicking here.

145 responses to “Should Pregnant Women Take Calcium Supplements to Lower Lead Levels?

Comment Etiquette

On NutritionFacts.org, you'll find a vibrant community of nutrition enthusiasts, health professionals, and many knowledgeable users seeking to discover the healthiest diet to eat for themselves and their families. As always, our goal is to foster conversations that are insightful, engaging, and most of all, helpful – from the nutrition beginners to the experts in our community.

To do this we need your help, so here are some basic guidelines to get you started.

The Short List

To help maintain and foster a welcoming atmosphere in our comments, please refrain from rude comments, name-calling, and responding to posts that break the rules (see our full Community Guidelines for more details). We will remove any posts in violation of our rules when we see it, which will, unfortunately, include any nicer comments that may have been made in response.

Be respectful and help out our staff and volunteer health supporters by actively not replying to comments that are breaking the rules. Instead, please flag or report them by submitting a ticket to our help desk. NutritionFacts.org is made up of an incredible staff and many dedicated volunteers that work hard to ensure that the comments section runs smoothly and we spend a great deal of time reading comments from our community members.

Have a correction or suggestion for video or blog? Please contact us to let us know. Submitting a correction this way will result in a quicker fix than commenting on a thread with a suggestion or correction.

View the Full Community Guidelines

  1. Dr. G. said, “What about in Western women, though—already taking in over 1,000 milligrams a day?”

    By what methods? Did you mean by calcium supplements, or are you assuming most of these women are eating dairy foods?




    2
    1. Western people tend to take calcium supplement, which is for the most time junk. It does not seem to cause harm but provide limited benefit, not in term of preventing osteoporosis. but it seems to prevent lead poisoning.

      Simply eat fish which has selenium to cancel the lead, plus the natural calcium.




      2
      1. Or Brazil nuts and get the selenium without the rancid fish oil.

        Seriously, most fish purchased through the supply chain from the sea to the store has long since deteriorated to the point at which it is an anti nutrient, if not actively poisonous. But a whole technology now exists to mask what they call ‘off smells and flavours’ and ensure that you do not get poisoned from the rancidity. It does not work brilliantly though (there was a recent UK expose of some pretty bad ‘fresh’ fish being sold by all our supermarket chains) and I know people who stuck with fish even after going WFPB because of a belief that their bodies really needed the nutrients only fish could supply, but gave it up in the end after the constant stomach upsets. Let’s not even go to the issue of the parasites. Or special concerns with farmed fish.




        10
        1. Selenium in Brazil nut is doubtful as there is only a single study made by the Brazilian government. Added to the hype is that you need to consume only one nut per day to get all the selenium you need. Anything too good to be true is questionable.

          As for fish or fish oil, first you pick a high quality fish oil that has been tested and certified by organizations such as IFOS or Labdoor. What you need to look at are not just the rancidity and contamination, but also the content of DHA/EPA. As for eating fish directly then you need to consume only wild caught fish.

          Never buy fish oil or any supplements from your local supermarket or even Costco.

          http://www.lifeextension.com/Magazine/2015/10/Finding-A-High-Quality-Fish-Oil/Page-01




          2
          1. Never pay attention to anything Jerry Lewis has to say. He has already admitted in previous posts that his agenda on this site is to discredit Dr. Greger and attack whenever possible. He has also already admitted that he has no scientific education and/or background – he is thus unqualified to made legitimate scientific statements/arguments here. JL is a troll whose agenda is simply to be as destructive as he can be – he offers no proactive scientific information.
            For those of us who are science-based and enjoy the scientific perspective we enjoy Dr. Greger’s educated perspective and information.
            JL is merely a gnat. Disregard.




            36
            1. Jerry

              Just one correction to your post …………..

              “Potato head, intolerance, angriness, violence, vulgarity, are some of the words to describe some on this board. Perhaps HIGH fat diet does it to their brain.”

              This article, “Damaging effects of a high-fat diet to the brain and cognition: A review of proposed mechanisms”, from the journal Nutritional Neuroscience explains why.
              https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4074256/

              Of course, it may be too late for some people. The damage has already been done.




              12
          2. Selenium in foods as per a WHO study on selenium in water..
            “2.3 Food
            Most people obtain virtually all of their selenium from the foods they eat. In plant and animal tissues, selenium is found mostly bound to proteins. Therefore, the most important food sources of selenium are meats and seafood (0.3–0.5 mg/kg), because of their high protein contents, and cereals (0.1–10 mg/kg), because they tend to be consumed in large amounts. In contrast, foods with relatively low protein levels, such as vegetables and fruits, tend to have relatively low selenium contents (<0.01 mg/kg).
            In all cases, the selenium content of foods reflects the available selenium content of the soils used to produce those foods (and the feedstuffs used to produce livestock). Accordingly, great variations in the selenium content of foods occur, with high- selenium foods produced in parts of the upper Great Plains of North America and isolated localities in Venezuela and China. In China, the selenium content of corn, rice and soy beans varies from 0.005 to 45 mg/kg (NRC, 1983; IPCS, 1987).
            FAO/WHO (1998) noted that global selenium intakes vary significantly; average intakes were relatively high in North America (85–150 μg/day), moderate in Europe (40–90 μg/day) and low in parts of China (10–20 μg/day). In Europe, dietary selenium intakes have declined in recent decades: 29–39 μg/day in the United Kingdom and 30–80 μg/day in the Nordic countries in 1997 (UK EGVM, 2002), compared with earlier intakes of 40–90 μg/day (FAO/WHO, 1998). This decline has been attributed to reductions in the importation of higher-selenium wheat grown in North America."




            3
            1. For also our consideration from the BBC feb 2017….
              “Chemicals banned in the 1970s have been found in the deepest reaches of the Pacific Ocean, a new study shows.
              Scientists were surprised by the relatively high concentrations of pollutants like PCBs and PBDEs in deep sea ecosystems.
              Used widely during much of the 20th Century, these chemicals were later found to be toxic and to build up in the environment.
              The results are published in the journal Nature Ecology and Evolution.
              The team led by Dr Alan Jamieson at the University of Newcastle sampled levels of pollutants in the fatty tissue of amphipods (a type of crustacean) from deep below the Pacific Ocean surface.
              The animals were retrieved using specially designed “lander” vehicles deployed from a boat over the Mariana and Kermadec trenches, which are over 10km deep and separated from each other by 7,000km.




              3
          3. A quote from a pretty comprehensive study of fish and fish oil by the Irish food safety authority…
            “Fish Oil Capsules

            Fish oil capsules were found to contain both dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs. The level found depended on the brand and the oil source. Those brands containing fish liver oil contained higher levels of dioxins than those brands containing fish body oils. Current European legislation (Council Regulation 2375/01/EC amending Commission Regulation (EC) No 466/2001 setting maximum levels for certain contaminants in foodstuffs) sets a maximum limit for dioxins of 2 pg WHO-TEQ/g fat for “fish oils intended for human consumption”.

            10 brands contained dioxin levels above the European limit.
            5 brands contained dioxins at levels below the European limit
            Three of these were fish body oil capsules
            Two of these were fish liver oil capsules.
            The maximum contamination was found at a level just over 5 times the maximum limit set in European legislation.”




            5
              1. I am glad to hear you say you are not taking them Jerry.

                I read the article you listed. the first thing my browser prompted was a cart to buy things on that site. No offense but I usually take with a grain of salt information on health places that are overtly with shopping carts selling things.

                On the article itself it mentions many tests and procedures. We are expecting the companies and or testing agencies are all on the up and up and totally objective in result findings.
                WE have just found one corporation Johnson and Johnson providing known cancer causing substances in their body powder. it is a proven the substances were known to contain this and it was a known cancer causer. So I am expected then to assume these testing agencies are on the up and up…..this requires allowances I just can not endeavor.

                UFC for example in a unrelated matter goes to USADA for its testing of steroids in fighters. There exists at least a dozen or so other agencies which may do a similar function. USADA I know familiar with sports……. is the only one of the testing agencies which is viable and truthful with their testing of athletes. The others may be influenced. A track record and some other things have all fans of the sport who follow it closely knowing that. USADA is trusted.

                Do I or are any of us are we followers of fish oil testers….seems not. We are depending by industry to tell us this or that. . Who buys the tests..the industry, not us the consumer. WE buy their product.

                So all my druthers considered I can by EPA DHA contrived from algae. It is more expensive but at least I know the source material may not be overtly contaminated. Fish probably that source is contaminated the question is by how much and to what degree.




                0
          4. Jerry writes “Selenium in Brazil nut is doubtful as there is only a single study made by the Brazilian government.”

            This is typical Jerry. He states his “facts” with total certainty even when they are absolutely wrong. This latest claim of his is completely untrue. There have been multiple studies of Brazil nuts and selenium. For example, this study by Cornell U http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/004565359400409N?via%3Dihub
            or this one from the Roswell Park Cancer Institute https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8072875

            Heck, go to Pubmed or Google and do a quick search and you will find many studies both from Brazil and elsewhere on selenium in Brazil nuts.

            The US Office of Dietary Supplements is quite clear that Brazil nuts are the food with the highest selenium content.
            https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Selenium-HealthProfessional/

            Did you dream this claim up by yourself Jerry? Or did you find it on the website of some huckster selling fish oil? Your posts give the impression that you believe that hucksters and cranks are better sources of information than the scientific literature and real-world facts. And if you find a claim that buttresses your own beliefs and opinions, then clearly it must be The Truth whatever the actual facts might show. Is that how it works?




            14
            1. This is typical of the “cholesterol and saturated fat” theories, i.e. multiple so called “researches” using faulty data of one earlier “research” and building on top of each others like a pyramid of lies. So the studies said that either Brazilian nut is beneficial and they “think” it’s due to its selenium content, or they know that selenium is essential and they “know” that Brazilian nut “contains a lot of selenium” based on faulty and biased data from the past. Show me a study that shows the selenium content of Brazilian nut based on lan analysis.

              Or all the theories that eating fish will give you lead poisoning are based on a single finding in a village in New Zealand, and all “researches” and “recommendations” are subsequently built on that data, ignoring the fact that billions of people in the world have eaten fish without any problem and have the longest longevity and healthy life.

              It’s all false sciences, causing so much havoc to the world health. In that sense, I think that the U.S. is a bigger terror group than even ISIS. Because ISIS comes and goes but false data and faked theories from the U.S. stay for centuries and may never go away because there is so much money at stake.




              1
              1. We all know that Jerry couldn’t care less about facts, but for everybody else:

                “It is interesting to note that although tuna contains fairly high levels of selenium, the bioavailability of selenium from tuna is apparently rather low (2). Despite the wide variability of selenium content in foods, there is no concern of selenium deficiency in the U.S. population. Brazil nut (Bertholletia excelsa) is one of very few marketable products with exceptionally high levels of selenium. In a random sampling of >500 individual nuts from one commercial source, 6% was found to contain £100 ug Se/g (3). The mean and median values were 29.6 and 13.4 ug Se/g, respectively. Chansler and co-workers (4) reported that the selenium in Brazil nut and selenite are equally effective in restoring plasma and liver glutathione peroxidase activities in selenium-deficient rats, suggesting that the selenium in these nuts is available for modulation of biologic functions.”
                (from this study, supported by the National Cancer Institute and National Institutes of Health)

                Also:
                “Conclusion: Consumption of 2 Brazil nuts daily is as effective for increasing selenium status and enhancing GPx activity as 100 μg Se as selenomethionine. Inclusion of this high-selenium food in the diet could avoid the need for fortification or supplements to improve the selenium status of New Zealanders.”
                (from this study, Supported by a small project grant from the National Heart Foundation of New Zealand)

                Wishing you all a happy & healthy 2018!




                13
              2. Oh, Jerry, what can I say?

                Both of the studies I referred to in my previous post used lab analyses to determine the selenium content of Brazil nuts. There are quite a few others out there that also did so. Yet here you are still insisting that all statements about selenium in Brazil nuts derive from a single faulty study/lab analysis. It is exactly the same with your claims about fish and lead consumption. There are hundreds possibly thousands of studies out there from ll around the world that illustrate this problem – not just one.

                Can you understand why I argue your posts are reality-denying and counter-factual?




                12
                1. Tom, I think he is really arguing with himself. He is on growth path and we will all welcome him on board once he faces up to the truth that to grow as a human being, let alone a healthy one, mind body and soul, that is,  he needs to stop swilling down animal products.




                  6
                  1. Gillian

                    Perhaps you are right. I think he is simply unwilling to consider the evidence though. Even when he acknowledges that the evidence exists, as with dietary saturated fat and blood cholesterol levels, he says that it is all “bogus” and “faked”.

                    Let us hope that you are right but it will be a long and difficult path if he eventually decides to travel on it. He seems to have sold his soul to all the internet “health” marketers and alternative health sceptics out there on the net.




                    6
                    1. Tom, you remind me of the father of the Prodigal Son story in the New Testament. Your patience to save the lost is amazing. I look around me and see all of these meat eaters, and I just call them losers and leave it at that.




                      5
          1. Indeed, Richard. I was not advocating eating any fish at all. I have in the past experienced a horrible sickness from eating wild salmon and as I said in my comment I know many people who have had to stop eating fish because it seems to be acting as a poison even when they could eat fish with no problems years ago, so you wonder what is going on. This is anecdotal but it does comes from a source with no message to promote viz diet, just real personal experience.




            0
      2. A dated report but a quote from the EPA…
        “As of 1998, 37 states have issued 679 fish advisories for PCBs. These advisories inform the public that high concentrations of PCBs have been found in local fish at levels of public health concern. State advisories recommend either limiting or avoiding consumption of certain fish from specific waterbodies or, in some cases, from specific waterbody types (e.g., all freshwater lakes or rivers).”

        Seems PCB’s are notorious for their ability to persist in environments.




        5
        1. The link you provided for the scientific analysis of calcium supplements gives me more ammunition to support my theory that many people have who drink distilled water. But, first let me quote the article you mentioned.
          “The increased cardiovascular risk with calcium supplements is consistent with epidemiological data relating higher circulating calcium concentrations to cardiovascular disease in normal populations. ” Many people who drink distilled water argue that drinking water that has a high calcium content is no different than taking calcium carbonate supplements ( big as horse pills ). A lot of underground water is very heavy in calcium carbonate. I know there are studies that say that drinking “hard water” reduces heart attacks.
          But, you are caught between two problems. Drinking hard water may reduce heart attacks that are caused by SA node malfunction or dysrhythmias, because you need calcium for proper heart rhythms. But, at the same time, to much calcium in the water can calcify the arteries not only in the heart, but such hard water can also add calcium to the plaque build up in arteries: aorta, carotid, femoral, coronary, and even the smaller arterial branches.
          So, if you drink a lot of hard water you increase your chances of sudden cardiac arrest from clogged arteries. But, you also increase your chances of arterial occlusion in other arterial branches in the body. I would rather take my chances drinking distilled water that I treat with drops of magnesium, lemon juice, and other nutrients rather than drinking hard water which also has other potential pollutants such as lead, pesticides, herbicides, chemicals, organisms, not to mention the huge amount of calcium carbonate that can calcify your arteries. Again, the article you mentioned states that calcium supplements increase circulating calcium in the blood stream. If a calcium pill can do that, so can drinking really hard water that is over loaded with calcium carbonate. There are a lot of people on this forum who are dead set against drinking distilled water. Here is a toast to you while I drink my distilled water: “cheer cheer”.




          0
          1. This is a plausible theory John but just how credible it is,is open to dispute. There are no clear conclusions to be drawn from the scientific literature I believe.

            Hard water is often high in magnesium which is a calcium antagonist and may reduce the adverse impact of high calcium consumption. There are also other trace mineral elements which may also impact health. It is possible that that the calcium magnesium ratio is more important than the total amounts of either. I don’t think anybody knows for sure. And high magnesium low calcium intake may be just as risky as high calcium low magnesium intake as this Chinese study appears to suggest “In this Chinese population with a low Ca/Mg intake ratio (a median of 1.7 vs around 3.0 in US populations), intakes of Mg greater than US Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) levels (320 mg/day among women and 420 mg/day among men) were related to increased risks of total mortality for both women and men.”
            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23430595

            There is also such a thing as magnesium toxicity although I doubt that you consume very large amounts The tolerable upper limit per day is apparently 350mg
            “Symptoms of magnesium toxicity, which usually develop after serum concentrations exceed 1.74–2.61 mmol/L, can include hypotension, nausea, vomiting, facial flushing, retention of urine, ileus, depression, and lethargy before progressing to muscle weakness, difficulty breathing, extreme hypotension, irregular heartbeat, and cardiac arrest [28]. The risk of magnesium toxicity increases with impaired renal function or kidney failure because the ability to remove excess magnesium is reduced or lost [1,28].”
            https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Magnesium-healthProfessional/

            All I am saying is that there is a risk that you are jumping out of the frying pan into the fire with this approach you favour.




            0
            1. Thanks Tom for that insightful research on calcium, magnesium ratios. This is more evidence that we need to stick to plants for our source of nutrients and minerals and not take supplements. I came across two FaceBook groups that go to extremes. One is the iodine group. These people swear up and down that iodine is the answer to all health problems and these people take anywhere from 9 to 50 mg of iodine perday. The other group is the magnesium group on FaceBook. They can’t just seem to get enough magnesium so they take supplements, magnesium baths, magnesium sprays….and for them magnesium is the answer to all health issues. Let’s not forget the Vitamin C crowd. And, then from there we have dozens of devotees to certain herbs, and other supplements. Let’s keep it simple. Plants can provide us with everything we need. We just have to make sure we get a wide variety of plants, and nuts.




              0
    2. This figure comes from the Mexican study discussed in the video. It appears that the calcium came from food not supplements but this is not directly stated eg
      “Dietary calcium intake, also not significantly different between treatment groups, was about 1,100 milligrams per day on average.”
      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4289552/

      However, in the US, women apparently consume significantly less calcium than this
      “In the United States, estimated calcium intakes from both food and dietary supplements are provided by the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), 2003–2006 [6]. Mean dietary calcium intakes for males aged 1 year and older ranged from 871 to 1,266 mg/day depending on life stage group; for females the range was 748 to 968 mg/day.”
      https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Calcium-HealthProfessional/




      1
      1. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141105140708.htm

        “We think it’s important to reinforce the fact that osteoporosis is not just a woman’s disease,” said Rozental. Studies have shown that men have twice the mortality rate of women both during initial hospitalization and in the year following a hip fracture.

        Survival rates following a wrist fracture, the number-one upper extremity fracture in older adults, also are lower among men. <<<<<

        "Treating men for bone fractures, but not the underlying cause, places them at a greater risk for future bone breaks and related complications," said Rozental. "The results of this study lead us to suggest that men over the age of 50 with fractures of the distal radius should undergo further clinical assessment and bone density testing to better identify those at high risk for future fracture as well as those who would benefit from further treatment."

        http://drhoffman.com/article/strontium-for-bone-health-2/

        Further, scientists are looking into the benefits of strontium for osteoarthritis because researchers hypothesize that strontium might also improve cartilage metabolism; additionally there may be protection against dental caries since 10 percent of subjects that had no dental carries in a 10-year study sponsored by the U.S. Navy resided in a small town that had unusually high levels of strontium in the municipal water supply.

        It is my clinical opinion that strontium citrate is absorbed better than the other forms of this mineral.

        Remember that strontium is very closely related to calcium. They both utilize the same carrier protein for transport. Calcium will win this tug of war effortlessly. The take home message is to take strontium 4 hours away from calcium (preferably other minerals as well) before bed. Currently, I dose strontium at 681mg in one dose prior to bed (each strontium citrate capsule contains 227mg of pure strontium citrate = 3 capsules) on an empty stomach (defined as 2 hours after a meal).

        They looked at 227 men and women 60 years or older. They used MRI scans to determine the total amount of brain lesions each person had. Then they correlated the results with calcium supplements. The results are scary.

        The results "revealed that supplement users had greater lesion volumes than non-users." And this was true regardless of calcium intake from food, age, sex, race, years of education, depression, and even hypertension.

        In fact, the researchers stated, "The influence of supplemental calcium use on lesion volume was of a magnitude similar to that of the influence of hypertension, a well-established risk factor for lesions." What they are saying is that as bad as having high blood pressure is for your brain, calcium supplements seem to be every bit as bad! Once again in their own words, "The present study demonstrates that the use of calcium-containing dietary supplements, even low-dose supplements, by older adults may be associated with greater [brain] lesion volumes."

        Hopefully this study will put the final nails in the coffin of calcium supplements for bone health. That said, I have to also say that there is a place for calcium supplements. On a daily basis, taking 500 mg or less per day is fine for general health. Taking more than that should be reserved for when there is a medical reason for them.

        Frank Shallenberger, MD

        no link

        There are considerable variations in the quality of drinking water in Norway. The researchers studied variations in magnesium and calcium levels in drinking water between different areas, as these are assumed to have a role in the development of bone strength. They wanted to examine whether there was a correlation between magnesium and calcium concentrations in drinking water and the incidence of hip fracture.

        The study results show that magnesium protects against hip fracture for both men and women. The researchers found no independent protective effect of calcium.

        I get 500 mg calcium in some calcium ascorbate (buffered vit C) and take some strontium citrate. 500 mg / day of magnesium.




        1
        1. Thank you Bugs for the information on calcium and magnesium in the assesment of hip fractures or bone loss in men and women. I have been following Dr.
          Eric Berg D.C, and Dr. Thomas Levy, M.D. These two health care providers have many videos on YouTube warning people not to take calcium supplements.
          They both recommend magnesium and the study you cited seems to verify their warnings. I get my calcium solely from green leafy vegetables. No calcium carbonate horse pills for me.




          2
    3. “Dr. G. said, “What about in Western women, though—already taking in over 1,000 milligrams a day?”
      By what methods? Did you mean by calcium supplements, or are you assuming most of these women are eating dairy foods?
      – – – –

      Meanwhile, back at the ranch…..




      0
      1. See my earlier response to your question ie

        This figure comes from the Mexican study discussed in the video. It appears that the calcium came from food not supplements but this is not directly stated eg
        “Dietary calcium intake, also not significantly different between treatment groups, was about 1,100 milligrams per day on average.”
        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4289552/

        However, in the US, women apparently consume significantly less calcium than this
        “In the United States, estimated calcium intakes from both food and dietary supplements are provided by the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), 2003–2006 [6]. Mean dietary calcium intakes for males aged 1 year and older ranged from 871 to 1,266 mg/day depending on life stage group; for females the range was 748 to 968 mg/day.”
        https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Calcium-HealthProfessional/




        0
  2. Several things to clarify:

    – As usual, animal food is trashed such as fish. On the contrary, fish consumption comes with selenium which negates the lead and fish provides DHA, something needed for the child brain development. The lead poisoning from fish was done is a selected village in New Zealand and spread out as half truth and repeated throughout the world. Same as the 70 year old cholesterol and saturated fat lies.

    – Not consuming fish actually causes more harm, especially to pregnant women and kids, than to consume it. Same as better to consume non organic vegetables that may be contaminated than to not consume it.

    https://chriskresser.com/5-reasons-why-concerns-about-mercury-in-fish-are-misguided/

    https://chriskresser.com/is-eating-fish-safe-a-lot-safer-than-not-eating-fish/

    – Calcium consumption through supplementation depends a great deal on the quality of the supplement because not all supplements are created the same. A rock can contain a lot of calcium too but it is not absorbable by the body. Calcium supplementation is normally not needed because there is plenty in foods but when needed, good organic calcium supplement is needed just as other supplements.

    Billions of people in the world are consuming fish and seafoods in general, with benefits and without harm.

    Forget about the so-called novel “China study”. It was written by a guy sitting in his bedroom in the U.S. Just go to Asia and see for yourself what people eat. I just came back from a 3 weeks trip to S. Korea and Taiwan. During my 3 weeks, I don’t see a single obese or in wheelchair person. Everybody are healthy and slim, as reflected in the longevity of those countries, which gets better and not worse compared to the past.

    Happy and Healthy New Year to everybody. Hope that in 2018, you will dispel a lot of misconception and become more healthy.




    2
    1. Kresser???? A paleo zealot with no actual qualifications in medicine or nutrition. Jerry, come on, Greger is heavy on the science. You have to fight fire with fire on this board.




      14
      1. Rather than analyzing and critiquing the content of what he said, you start out by name calling and profiling.

        What a way to start the new Year. Sigh!




        1
        1. from a slightly date NY times article….a study they did on their own for investigative purposes…
          “Recent laboratory tests found so much mercury in tuna sushi from 20 Manhattan stores and restaurants that at most of them, a regular diet of six pieces a week would exceed the levels considered acceptable by the Environmental Protection Agency.

          Sushi from 5 of the 20 places had mercury levels so high that the Food and Drug Administration could take legal action to remove the fish from the market. The sushi was bought by The New York Times in October.

          “No one should eat a meal of tuna with mercury levels like those found in the restaurant samples more than about once every three weeks,” said Dr. Michael Gochfeld, professor of environmental and occupational medicine at the Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in Piscataway, N.J.

          Dr. Gochfeld analyzed the sushi for The Times with Dr. Joanna Burger, professor of life sciences at Rutgers University. He is a former chairman of the New Jersey Mercury Task Force and also treats patients with mercury poisoning.




          2
            1. And this excerpt…
              Fish tissue data EPA…
              “Results from the National Lake Fish Tissue Study indicate that mercury, PCBs, and dioxins and furans are widely distributed in lakes and reservoirs in the lower 48 states. Mercury and PCBs were detected in all the fish samples collected from the 500 sampling sites. Dioxins and furans were detected in 81% of the predator samples (fillet composites) and 99% of the bottom-dweller samples (whole-fish composites).”




              5
              1. From the same source..
                “According to EPA’s 2008 Biennial National Listing of Fish Advisories, mercury, PCBs, dioxins and furans, DDT, and chlordane accounted for 97% of the advisories in effect at the end of 2008. These five chemicals were also commonly detected in fish samples collected for the National Lake Fish Tissue Study. Since human health screening values (SVs) were readily available, they were applied to total concentrations of mercury, PCBs, dioxins and furans, DDT, and chlordane found in predator fillets.
                Predator results for the five commonly-detected chemicals indicate that:
                screening value piechart

                48.8% of the sampled population of lakes had mercury tissue concentrations that exceeded the 300 ppb (0.3 ppm) human health SV for mercury, which represents a total of 36,422 lakes.
                16.8% of the sampled population of lakes had total PCB tissue concentrations that exceeded the 12 ppb human health SV, representing a total of 12,886 lakes.
                7.6% of the sampled population of lakes had dioxin and furan tissue concentrations that exceeded the 0.15 ppt [toxic equivalency or TEQ] human health SV, which represents a total of 5,856 lakes.
                1.7% of the sampled population of lakes had DDT tissue concentrations that exceeded the 69 ppb human health SV, which represents a total of 1,329 lakes.
                0.3% of the sampled population of lakes had fish tissue concentrations that exceeded the 67 ppb human health SV for chlordane, which represents a total of 235 lakes.”




                2
                    1. Yes, ron,
                      For those who eat fish, there is an acronym to remember which wild ocean fish are best: SMASH
                      Salmon, Mackerel (not king mackerel), Anchovy, Sardine, Herring.
                      I respect that some believe you should not even eat small wild ocean fish. For those that do eat them, those are the best ones.
                      John S




                      0
        2. Jerry

          It s entirely legitimate to question the credibilty of your sources. Dr Greger cites sources and references from the scientific literature and professional journalist. You cite Kressler (and other internet hucksters on a regular basis). Kressler is an acupuncturist and seller of pills and potions to fad dieters.

          Can’t you understand the difference? Your allegations of “name calling” and “profiling” are the same tactic used by the saturated fat and cholesterol cranks who attempt to dismiss all the evidence on those matters by calling it “demonising”. Anything to avoid acknowledging the evidence and facts of the matter, it seems.




          11
        3. It’s your argument, Jerry, so it is up to you to present the refereed support, not for me to do your work for you.

          That said, I think your contributions on this board are important lest we turn into an echo chamber.

          Best wishes for the new year.




          0
        1. You could not make this stuff up…..
          “GRASS FED BEEF ORGANS (DR MERCOLA & CHRIS KRESSER APPROVED FOOD) — $38”

          Copy cut and paste




          3
    2. Jerry Lewis, Every day you come to this website and criticize Dr Greger’s presentation of science based nutrition and try to convince everyone to eat saturated fat, meat, eggs, dairy, and take a handful of supplements. And when you try to reference evidence to support your views, your references are from magazine articles or research funded by the meat, egg, or dairy industries or supplement pushers. If readers of this comment section look over your past postings, they will see that you have been corrected by others with valid references every time.

      If you don’t like this website, why do you come here every day? You obviously don’t come here to learn. Dr Greger spends a lot of time and effort to educate people with scientific information on nutrition that is not available anywhere else. And all you ever do is try to destroy the effectiveness of his website.

      If you want to believe the propaganda from the meat, egg, and dairy industries, you have every right to do so. But this is not the right forum to keep preaching your views. Most people come to this website to learn about truthful science based nutrition. It is one of the few websites where people can find this kind of information. If you want to preach your views, you should start your own website instead of trying to destroy Dr Greger’s.




      25
        1. I think Jerry is probably a very nice guy with a lot going for him.
          However he is fair game with any statements he makes on this board as are any one of us to include myself.

          If I say something wrong I would certainly appreciate it if others would bring this to my attention. I have posted only a little while here but I am certain I have made errors. Memory is simply not infallible for any of us even the most intelligent. I am not that certainly so I may make more.

          I will get a bit bothered when some thing is wrongly stated and brought to my attention..but I grow from it.




          6
      1. I think the quality of this forum is diminished by the continual arguments around JLs posts. And it’s the SOS all the time. And I use supplemental amino acids…gelatin…eat wild caught salmon….so I’m not a purist.




        3
    3. Never pay attention to anything Jerry Lewis has to say. He has already admitted in previous posts that his agenda on this site is to discredit Dr. Greger and attack whenever possible. He has also already admitted that he has no scientific education and/or background – he is thus unqualified to made legitimate scientific statements/arguments here. JL is a troll whose agenda is simply to be as destructive as he can be – he offers no proactive scientific information.
      For those of us who are science-based and enjoy the scientific perspective we enjoy Dr. Greger’s educated perspective and information.
      JL is merely a gnat. Disregard.




      12
      1. No offense I see your point of view but will express a contrary.

        I and I think most of us develop significant conclusive results during our life in very many areas of the intellect. I tend to forget at times the basis from which I extended logic to make these conclusions. So a challenge can be a impetus of a sort to revisit our initial basis for logical conclusion.

        I knew consumption of fish was suspect but really had not reviewed it in a while. I knew why fish oil supplementation was suspect but also had not reviewed it in a while…..so there it is now I have reviewed and listed just a few of the many that serve as basis for these views. It is wonderful that I have been able to reeducate myself in this manner. And I forget at times others may not really have had the experience of media to develop such a basis for judgement in these areas.
        So listing some of this basis may help them, those that do eat fish and use fish oils.
        Win win as I see it.
        How can we have a platform to exhibit such things if all the discussion is to the affirmative?.
        Only if those type statements are unchallenged can real health harm ensue.to unsuspecting readers who assume they are based in science.




        7
        1. That’s true, Ron.

          I have learnt a lot from investigating Jerry”s claims.

          On Jerry’s plus side, then, he is a learning tool and tireless Devil’s Advocate

          Unfortunately, on the minus side, he is resistant to learning and simply repeats over and over again the same old stuff that has been comprehensively refuted before. He can be tiresome and repetitious. And somebody once described him as an insufferable know-it-all. He states all his claims with total confidence. Of course, “confidence” is where the “con” in conman comes from. However, I think Jerry genuinely believes all the nonsense he obsessively posts here. It can be interesting when he comes up with some new improbable claim but its really very tedious when he just writes the same stuff day after day after day. Perhaps Jerry has watched Groundhog Day too many times and hopes that doing the same thing again and again with minor tweaks will make his fantasies come true?

          Also, he appears (from what he wrote in some old posts) to have a personal grudge against Dr G, this website and “vegans” that compels him to often be provocative and insulting. Personally, I think he needs professional help. His behaviour simply can’t be considered normal. Let alone rational.
          There is a fair bit of evidence that high (saturated) fat diets damage brain health and I can’t help wondering ……………..




          9
          1. Hard to say about peoples.
            Personally the last real hard time I had from a person who found out I was vegetarian and proceeded to slam me and my diet for seemingly no reason…

            Her mom had dementia., I was visiting my brother quite often, who also had dementia in a facility. Apparently she had a affair with a vegetarian after the death of her dad, and also about that time became demented. He I gather had treated her badly.
            Her mom died the daughter had severe cancer and all that that causes. In chemo bald, a woman who cared about that thing of appearing a certain ideal of feminism……but long story short she blamed vegetarianism for her moms decline.
            Not rational at all but is spoke to her pain. Geeze Louise imagine how painful that whole thing was. Her moms dementia was not a pretty silent dementia as well. Quite a publically embarrassing one, they differ in that. Clearly she was not responding to it well.Nor her cancer.

            No big deal to me as I just avoided it but….we never do know what causes peoples to act in certain ways. Obsessions to my opinion usually are related to some long ago thing of a personal nature which quite often are not related to the subject matter except peripherally. A thing triggers the pain but it is not a conscious thing, only the pain remains the specific may disappear to memory.

            They become like triggers, and people get stuck in them. Cannot escape really..
            So who knows. Many are isolated from reality but functionally get along just fine. Never know till you talk in depth with them. So we have this medium and find out the indepth when we really woul,d person to person, have walked away long ago, thinking them strange.
            Captives ourselves as a technological sort of consequence to this medium..

            I do not know this fellow at all. So cannot say at all in his regard. But that is my one personal experience with someone who had a obsession to be very very strongly against vegetarians..
            My best case scenario for someone like that is he is on a payroll. Worst case is yes……as described.
            Older fellow I guess as per the choice of name. Pretty to very old the name suggests. That person was not really popular since the seventies.
            Sad in any event. Heartbreaking how peoples are. Both possibilities so sad.
            Imagine being so poor probably disabled one had to do that for a living……breaks my heart as well.




            2
          2. Dear Tom,

            Jerry suffers from the very human trait of desperately questing for material to support an addiction.The more aware of the addiction the person is the greater the denial and desire to purge their world of challenging information and people. You see it with people with alcohol problems all the time, but the addiction to animal products is not as obvious in behaviour… or maybe it is.




            2
    4. Jerry Lewis – you just came back from Taiwan and S. Korea and make some arguments about what you saw there. I see you conducted no peer reviewed publishable scientific research. The China Study, – as I am sure you well know by now – was conducted in CHINA. Hello! Where science conducted.
      You are such an idiot. Laughable actually.




      6
    5. From EWG…
      “PCBS IN FARMED SALMON

      Test results show high levels of contamination
      Summary — PCBs in farmed salmon
      Seven of ten farmed salmon purchased at grocery stores in Washington DC, San Francisco, and Portland, Oregon were contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) at levels that raise health concerns, according to independent laboratory tests commissioned by Environmental Working Group.

      These first-ever tests of farmed salmon from U.S. grocery stores show that farmed salmon are likely the most PCB-contaminated protein source in the U.S. food supply. On average farmed salmon have 16 times the dioxin-like PCBs found in wild salmon, 4 times the levels in beef, and 3.4 times the dioxin-like PCBs found in other seafood. The levels found in these tests track previous studies of farmed salmon contamination by scientists from Canada, Ireland, and the U.K. In total, these studies support the conclusion that American consumers nationwide are exposed to elevated PCB levels by eating farmed salmon.




      4
      1. I know someone who continually pulls bottom feeding catfish from the Ohio river all summer….and graciously hands out frozen cleaned catfish to everyone in his family. He is duplicating his grandparents cottage on the lake experiences. My dog won’t eat the cooked fish…so that’s good enough for me.

        He also poo-poos contaminants…apparently what he can’t see won’t hurt him? Once told me about a co-worker who had his hands in some old style transformer fluid…the kind that contained PCBs…he told him that it didn’t bother him a bit. Science? What’s that?




        1
    6. From the Korean Herald

      “Obesity has emerged as a major health threat in Korea in recent years. According to a study released by the National Health Insurance Service on Thursday, the number of obese Koreans — those with a BMI of 30 or above — accounted for 4.2 percent of the entire population in 2012, up from 2.5 percent in 2002.

      One in 17 South Koreans will be obese in 2025 if the current trend continues, the report said.

      Koreans spent 2.7 trillion won ($2.65 billion) on treating obesity and obesity-related diseases in 2011. The cost accounted for 5.8 percent of the entire medical bills that year. In 2007, however, only 1.9 trillion won was spent in total on the health condition.




      2
      1. From IB Times…
        “Obesity, a plague on the advanced Western world, is also a major problem in the dynamic economies of the Far East, particularly in the Republic of China, or ROC, and Taiwan.

        The numbers are quite stark.

        Wang Yu-min, an official with Taiwan’s Ministry of Education, warned the Taiwan Today newspaper that about one-fourth of the nation’s elementary and junior high school students are already overweight, suggesting they are in great danger of becoming obese as adults.

        In response, the Taipei government may enact laws to restrict the advertising of fast food on children’s television programs — a government survey indicated that the average child watched more than 8,000 fast food commercials on TV annually — as well as establish a national nutrition law to encourage healthy eating and lifestyles.




        2
        1. “Just go to Asia and see for yourself what people eat. I just came back from a 3 weeks trip to S. Korea and Taiwan. During my 3 weeks, I don’t see a single obese or in wheelchair person. Everybody are healthy and slim, as reflected in the longevity of those countries, which gets better and not worse compared to the past.”




          0
            1. Jerry is making these statements which I first refute then quote and bold.
              It takes a bit of thinking and is a bit unusual but it serves purpose. It does make no sense if one only reads parts of the discussion.
              And it depends a bit my capability to respond depending on what medium I am using to respond.

              Jerry fully knows what he wrote, why I bold.and how it is a quote he wrote it.. It is generally aimed at him not a general audience.
              Jerry is also backing off his positions but not admitting to it. I want Jerry to know this is obvious as obvious as the bold type. And the more outrageous ones stand in their outlandishness by themselves and deserve to be bolded.

              If he is going to state nonsense I am providing a tiny bit of accountability for that nonsense. .




              1
              1. The other statements I am making basically various quotes from links or links themselves, may serve anyone new to this reading this discussion, some interesting facts which may be helpful for them to know.
                Jerry is then serving me a reason for posting those things.

                Why not fish….well there it is. Why not fish oil…well there it is.

                A major means endeavored by many particularly far right peoples, is to distract from a known deficit position in discussion. So they will go on and on about unrelated materials. Fish and fish oil then are these sort of distractors in this discussion. One to oppose could continually stick to the subject and refuse to budge, in this specific calcium and lead. Or one could refute the distractions. I chose to refute in this specific as this board in this subject seems not amenable to staying on point ;)

                If you or anyone else has objections to this tact or others I may endeavor please feel free to voice them. I will leave immediately and not come here again. Anyone from our side. Sometimes I just discuss sometimes I may discuss with intention. I never stay where I am not wanted by the side I favor.




                0
        2. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/09/mexico-obesity_n_3567772.html

          Mexico has overtaken the United States as the fattest country on this half of the globe, CBS News reports.

          With a 32.8 percent adult obesity rate, Mexico just inches past the 31.8 percent obesity rate in the United States, according to a study released last month by the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization.

          That makes Mexico the most obese country in the hemisphere and one of the fattest countries on the planet. According to the FAO’s data, which dates from 2008, several Pacific Island countries and territories have even higher obesity rates. Nauru (71.1 percent), the Cook Islands (64.1 percent) and the Marshall Islands (46.5 percent) all boast obesity rates well above those found in either Mexico or the United States.

          Isn’t “free trade” wonderful! Allowing corporations to spread their health destroying “foods” around the planet? Enough to give the boy with the orange hair goose pimples.




          0
            1. A bit unlikely Buster since they were eating a lot of beans before the obesity problem arrived. in fact high bean diets appear to promte weight loss in overweight people and reduce cardiovascular risk factors:eg

              “A high-fibre bean-rich diet was as effective as a low-carbohydrate diet for weight loss, although only the bean-rich diet lowered atherogenic lipids.”
              http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jhn.12118/abstract

              Perhaps it is all that cheese that Mexican cuisine seems to favour? A study found that a dietary pattern that included the highest amount of whole-fat dairy carried the highest risk of overweight/obesity in Mexican adults.
              http://jn.nutrition.org/content/140/10/1869.full

              And since we know that dairy fats are associated with greater cardiovascular risk, it seems that Mexicans would be better off going back to an a
              eating pattern that emphasises maize and beans rather than one that emphasises?

              “When dairy fat was replaced with the same number of calories from vegetable fat or polyunsaturated fat, the risk of cardiovascular disease dropped by 10% and 24%, respectively. Furthermore, replacing the same number of calories from dairy fat with healthful carbohydrates from whole grains was associated with a 28% lower risk of cardiovascular disease.”
              https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2016/10/25/dairy-fat-cardiovascular-disease-risk/




              1
              1. Hmm, my keying is even worse than usual today. I am a real butterfingers – see, Buster, another dairy-inspired problem. The penultimate paragraph should read

                “And since we know that dairy fats are associated with greater cardiovascular risk, it seems that Mexicans would be better off going back to an
                eating pattern that emphasises maize and beans rather than one that emphasises dairy.”




                1
    7. The China study a book so named is as Wikipedia explains….
      The China–Cornell–Oxford Project was a large observational study conducted throughout the 1980s in rural China, jointly funded by Cornell University, the University of Oxford, and the government of China.[1] In May 1990, The New York Times termed the study “the Grand Prix of epidemiology”.[2]

      The first two major studies were led by T. Colin Campbell, professor of nutritional biochemistry at Cornell, who summarized the results in his book, The China Study (2004). Other lead researchers were Chen Junshi, Deputy Director of Institute of Nutrition and Food Hygiene at the Chinese Academy of Preventive Medicine in Beijing, Richard Peto of the University of Oxford, and Li Junyao of the China Cancer Institute.[3]

      The study examined the diets, lifestyle, and disease characteristics of 6,500 people in 65 rural Chinese counties, comparing the prevalence of disease characteristics, excluding causes of death such as accidents.[4]”




      5
    8. I was born and raised in Taiwan and most of my family is still living there. The people in Taiwan are not all healthy and slim. In fact, slim doesn’t mean healthy. A lot of Asian people who have diabetes are skinny. Nowadays the kids in Taiwan are putting on much more weight than when I was young due to their westernized diet and sedentary lifestyle.




      6
      1. Re: Nowadays the kids in Taiwan are putting on much more weight than when I was young due to their westernized diet and sedentary lifestyle.

        Those who eat processed foods and drink soda pops and sit around playing video games, are the exceptions and they are no different from the people who eat a SAD diet in the U.S.

        I am talking about the majority of Asians who eat the so-called saturated fat and cholesterol from fresh foods and they are active, now and in the past. They are all healthy.




        0
        1. Jerry

          You live in a fantasy world where what you want to be true is true because you want it to be true. You obviously do not allow yourself to be confused by mere facts or mundane reality. No, you are made of sterner stuff and cleave to a higher Truth which you generously attempt to share with the recalcitrant and unenlightened clods on this board who are – foolish creatures – believers in hard evidence and the findings of scientific studies.

          “I am talking about the majority of Asians who eat the so-called saturated fat and cholesterol from fresh foods and they are active, now and in the past. They are all healthy.”

          The idea that the majority of Asians eat high saturated fat and cholesterol fresh food diets is absurd. Also absurd is the idea that people eating these high saturated fat and cholesterol diets are all healthy. No wonder you don’t provide any evidence to back up these claims. There isn’t any because your statement is highly misleading. Repeating this nonsense over and over again won’t make it true, either.

          Of course, the Okinawans and Japanese eating traditional diets did consume some some saturated fat and cholesterol, and were apparently very healthy. However, total calories from saturated fat on those diets were less than 2% and just over 2% respectively. It is unclear how much cholesterol they consumed but since animal foods delivered fewer than 4% and fewer than 7% of total calories respectively, it was therefore likely very, very low.
          http://www.okicent.org/docs/anyas_cr_diet_2007_1114_434s.pdf

          Just how absurd and misleading your claim is, can be illustrated by looking at plain old rolled oats – my breakfast on most days. A serving (156 grams) of oats contains 1.9 grams of saturated fat and delivers 607 calories in total. Since a gram of fat provides 9 calories, that 1.9 grams of saturated fat provides 17.1 calories or nearly 3% of total calories. That is significantly more saturated fat than was consumed by those Okinawans and Japanese eating saturated fat and cholesterol as you put it.
          http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/cereal-grains-and-pasta/5708/2

          It’s pretty clear what state you live in – the state of denial.




          6
          1. “You live in a fantasy world where what you want to be true is true because you want it to be true. You obviously do not allow yourself to be confused by mere facts or mundane reality. No, you are made of sterner stuff and cleave to a higher Truth which you generously attempt to share with the recalcitrant and unenlightened clods on this board who are – foolish creatures – believers in hard evidence and the findings of scientific studies.”

            Don’t talk about the president that way! Not very nice….




            1
        2. Jerry again no personal offense intended. Above you stated clearly (I bolded it in one post) that you did not see a single person in a wheelchair nor any fat peoples on your visit.
          Now you are stating a different thing. You clearly did not state majority in the first post.

          So how can anyone discuss. Which statement would be true the first or this second. And which then should peoples respond to the first or second?.
          Can you see how difficult you may be making it for some peoples to follow?
          And why some perhaps most respond as they do?

          Do you think all should discuss in that fashion? Do you think we could all discuss in that fashion, or would we just be throwing meaningless words on a internet board of some sort to no aim nor result?




          1
          1. single obese or wheelchair person” is the statement, you did not see that is what you stated. Now you say majority with no apology nor explanation.

            Conducting conversation in this manner is really but a step from sponsoring gibberish to deconstruct discussion..




            1
  3. I continue to look for the higher calcium green vegetables since that is a nutrient that is bitter and thus lacking in common cultivated plants and am curious if anyone else has found anything. From the study Vegetable Bitterness is Related to Calcium Content, the higher common foods include bitter melon (300 mg per 100 g) and dandelion (~180 mg). Perhaps because of the food industry and other factors, most of the Western world has lost the taste for the more bitter calcium rich plants. I tend to find what they are in studies of traditional vegetables, whether from pubmed or food science works such as Mediterranean Wild Edible Plants and Wild Edible Vegetables of Lesser Himalayas. I first found out about some from the ayurvedic Caraka Samhita. I have been studying that work for a while now but didn’t really pay attention to it until I found some studies showing vegetables can reach 600-700+ mg per 100 g. Some of the better ones that can be found at some farmers or ethnic markets include broccoli leaves, cabbage (outer leaves), daikon radish leaves, fenugreek leaves, and nettle (~620). Some of the ones mentioned in Caraka include amaranthus spinosus (spiny amaranth) and chenopodium album (lamb’s quarters), both of which grow wild perhaps throughout the lower half of the United States, and maybe at higher altitudes. But from the above mentioned work Mediterranean Wild Edible Plants, while I once though ~700+ mg per serving was the highest, I’ve found the upper limit is now at least 900+ with pellitory, which also grows wild in much of the US, though I’m unsure about oxalates. Perhaps levels can reach even higher. When cooked in traditional ways such as soups or stews with various herbs and spices, the taste is fine. It’s unfortunate that the traditional truly nutrient rich plants are in many places now considered weeds.




    3
    1. You are right. Calcium oxalate makes vegetables taste bitter.

      Some people are more receptive to bitterness than other, preventing them from eating a number of nutritious vegetables.

      Other than bitter melon, a number of vegetables are perceived as bitter by some people.

      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2768385/

      https://thebrainbank.scienceblog.com/2013/08/25/hating-greens-and-taster-genes-the-bitter-truth/

      http://kitchen-parade-veggieventure.blogspot.com/2012/01/what-are-bitter-greens.html




      1
    2. A bit funny to me I go to the local supermarket and dandelion is called simply greens and sells for a dollar some a bunch. I go to the local health food store and dandelion is correctly marked dandelion but costs three something a bunch.

      Like the taste mixed in with others in a salad. I can now tolerate any horrible tasting mixed drink type thing due to several years in the past juicing, so can mix it in with a drink.
      When I find them however I throw them in everything even burritos in small amounts.Enough ingredients and the bitter can balance a more sweet tasting veggie or leaf. But sometimes they cannot be found and are not here where I live in any month except summer. They are here but only shriveled and dried up nasty looking things.

      Some video or other mentioned Almonds as potentially mediating calcium absorbing but I have not seen much follow up on that.

      Never connected bitter to calcium. Thought about seems true.




      1
      1. You may know that what is labeled as red dandelion is chicory, another plant that seems worth consumption. With that and most plants, there are numerous relatives that are often wild and more bitter. Some others I forgot to mention are two brassicas: shepherd’s purse, once consumed in North America, still available at some Chinatown markets and I’ve seen it frozen at Asian markets (from China), and moringa oleifera leaves, rarely at Indian markets in my area though somewhat often in Filipino, also frozen there and at some Asian markets that have Filipino foods, and at farmer market vendors that cater to Asians if in a warm enough climate (mid US?). Moringa fruit, drumsticks, are often available at Indian markets. As for others, daikon is sold with the leaves at Japanese markets, though at other places, you may be able to ask the produce grocer to save them.

        Concerning brassicas, I have been curious about the Greger video of Anticancer vegetables. Why do some brassicas tend to inhibit carcinogenesis more than others? It may be glucosinolate levels but also perhaps glucosinolate type. I’m unsure if there are any studies that detail the different actions of the various glucosinolates. In the work Nutritional Oncology, there’s a chart citing studies: while most common brassica range in type and amount, for amount, many average less than 100 mg/100 g, though better ones are horseradish (160), garden cress (390), collard (201), brussel sprouts (237), mustards (~4600-6410) and moringa oleifera (20,200). I believe moringa leaves test at around mid 300s to 400+ mg of calcium per 100 g, thus also a decent plant. Some other common plants, found in an Indian study of calcium content, are coriander, dill, mint, and curry leaves. Sometimes I use those in amounts somewhere between an herb and vegetable.

        Of the mentioned plants (other typically unconsumed parts such as leaves of common vegetables) or wild plants, I always ask vendors at farmers markets. I’ve been able to sometimes convince some to pick them. Many of the wild plants once consumed are still everywhere, on farms, fields, in the mountains, by sidewalks, etc.; we need to just merely make them once again known and encourage harvesting and consumption.




        2
        1. Other decent plants include taro leaves (450+ mg of calcium per 100) and perhaps yam and sweet potato leaves, all of which I’ve seen at Asian markets. There is also gongura (hibiscus) available at Indian markets when in season. From nutritional studies of Asian countries, legumes and some grains also look to be good sources with ranges between ~50 to ~350 (finger millet). It seems that if one has a good diet – vegetables with focus on bitter greens, legumes, grains, fruit, nuts, and seeds –, one need not worry about nutrients.

          Ancients from various traditions mention meal frequency, with some instances of eating once or twice a day or less. With wild plants, that seems certainly possible. I believe the habit of eating twice a day or more came from the active working class such as farmers or warriors, with those less active such as intellectuals (Indian brahmins and yogis for instance) eating once a day. If we had the wild plants, we maybe could return to that and thus if it is true that aging is related to calorie restriction, obtain the need nutritients from far less food than what’s possible now and achieve the longevity and health mentioned in older myths, stories, and medical texts.




          1
          1. On those in India eating once a day. Buddhists consider themselves independent from Hinduism but Hindu’s firmly consider Buddhism a form of Hinduism. The Indian supreme court has made such a determination in a legal opinion versed a bit ago.

            That said the Buddhist reason for not eating any time the sun was not out was by some statements as bugs were attracted to campfires. Killed that generated bad karma. And the initial Buddhists were for all intents and purposes monks or nuns and food was obtained only by begging, a practice common even today by Hindus and others in India. Begging three meals a day would be not practical and probably perceived as greedy and evidence of gluttony.
            Religious peoples begging was a common in historical India. Brahmins were a bit a high class the highest as they performed many rituals that would enable fortunate rebirth and remedy for current problems. Many subsets exist in Hindu one of which even advocates for the non wearing of clothes and stoic lifestyles.

            Jainism favors a bit a stoic lifestyle, though many are quite well off, as that only reduces generation of karma..Karma/action always tending towards rebirth. Many stop eating altogether as a end to a very long life voluntarily. AS a preferred result..so there is nuance to this thing. .




            3
            1. I would be curious if there are any classical Buddhist or Jain texts that contribute to dietetic knowledge. Without sanskrit knowledge, I’m not even familar with later untranslated Ayurvedic texts after the primary three (of nine). It could be that they mostly followed local variations of Ayurveda, and perhaps at times not being part of the noble class, they followed more common practices and/or local variations, and perhaps had less access to a larger variety of plants.

              Concerning more nutrient rich plants and lifespan, I believe Caraka at times says only that it is possible to live to 100, while some can live longer and some shorter. I’ve heard but am not sure of the sources, that other Hindu texts mention 120. Neil Barnard is I think the only contemporary doctor that says he plans to live to that age. Jain texts it’s said that, in this age of Kali yuga, 125 is the maximum possible. There are longevity formulas that perhaps out of their superior rank above all else (extremely high antioxidants such as amla taken in huge quantities, etc.), mythologize longevity for example living for a 1,000 years, or according to Taoism and South Indian Siddha medicine, one of which I’m only slightly familar through a partial translation of a dietetics text, and the other I know very little about since there aren’t any original translated manuscripts, perhaps longer.




              0
                1. Hi Christine, wonderful find! I am familiar with the SUNY series in Hindu Studies and have looked over the list of works occassionally but missed that. To repeat, it was when I paid attention to sections of Caraka that I hadn’t much before, such as the list of vegetables (and their order perhaps by importance) as well as studies from pubmed of traditional vegetables that I found that calcium levels can far exceed that of common cultivated vegetables.

                  There really aren’t any worthy list of vegetables that I’ve seen in other medical traditions. Chinese texts have been mostly lost though there is a Mongolian (I believe) text that lists a few, also high in calcium (mentioned also in Caraka and in my first comment). Dioscorides I haven’t looked over carefully but it doesn’t seem to prefer any plants over others for regular consumption. Greek and Roman works also seem to not mention much though I recall some habits (unaware of source) such as bitter vetch, of which I have sometimes found non-bitter varieties.

                  There are works about the history of Indian food that are somewhat informative, as well as other texts that mention quite interesting food rules such as the Manusmriti.

                  As far as preferring certain plants to increase nutrients such as calcium, perhaps there is something to the so called “low carb.” I’ve heard Joel Fuhrman and Brenda Davis mention either to take less grains if one is trying to lose weight or even that grains aren’t necessary (very curious about that). From that and some hints such as comments in some Indian texts, it seems that if one is less active, such as one is not a farmer and active all day, perhaps favoring more servings of vegetables and legumes and less grains is perhaps preferable.

                  Concerning calcium levels, if 900+ is the maximum in a leafy green, and it seems that 400-600 mg per 100 g is mid-range and fairly common among previously commonly eaten plants, since we have a lesser variety of these now (considering what I can find searching all ethnic and farmers markets), I am curious, concerning longevity, if I favor those, two are brassicas so maybe not so bad, is there any harm. For example spinach and chard are quite low but since I can’t find any better relatives (such as within the amaranth family), I take them in lesser quantities and before rarely. If I limit myself to less than 10-15 or so of the best vegetables (leaves, fruits, and roots), plus dozens of other what seem to be the best plants (legumes, herbs, spices, etc.), what might I miss. If the goal is merely to live to 100 without disease, even a cold or flu, not a problem, but knowing that more is possible, I want more.




                  0
              1. I am wondering what it is about amla that makes it so full of antioxidants. The frozen fruit that I have seen is pale in color–certainly more pale than a granny apple–and folks say that deeper colored fruits and vegetables are usually more healthy. So how is it that amla are so full of antioxidants and are so healthy? They pale next to blackberries, strawberries, etc.




                0
                1. I purchase Amla at my local Indian / Pakistani grocery store here in Texas.
                  You can tell they have a lot of antioxidants by the taste, because they taste sour and terrible. But, I consider them to be a medicine and not a food. So, I hold my nose and eat my Amla because it is supposedly the highest food in antioxidants. Wouldn’t it be funny if it was discovered that all the hype about Amla was sponsered by Indian officials to get more people to buy their agricultural product….and Amla has no special benefit whatsoever.




                  0
                  1. Indeed it seems to be the taste, which I believe is primarily from the tannins. Certain other higher antioxidant herbs, a few mentioned in that 3000+ food antioxidant list, also taste not to great. Brahmi (bacopa moniera) I believe was on that list; guduchi (tinospora cordifolia), known as an immune builder, tastes closer to dirt than than most other herbs I’ve tried.

                    There is a work devoted to the phylllanthus family, written by an Indian I believe, covering 1,000 relatives. It was either in there or some other food science work, that I saw mentioned an australian relative can reach 2,000-5,000 mg Vitamin C per 100 g. There are numerous fruits in the family, like all plants, some of which either grow or are native to the Americas. There’s food everywhere; for higher amounts of calcium and any other nutrient, perhaps it’s as close as the nearest natural park, field, or mountain.

                    Burdock leaves is another plant I’ve been curious about, perhaps somewhat easy to forage.

                    Of related antioxidants, if triphala is around 3x higher than amla, that seems to mean that amla is bringing down the average of the three fruits. I’m not sure how is bibhitaki (terminalia bellerica), but I believe the highest of the three is perhaps or likely haritaki (terminalia chebula). It is the fruit that can be seen held by medicine Buddha in statues and I think one of the main herbs to be taken in Ayurvedic cancer treatment so perhaps that is true highest antioxidant of obtainable plants.

                    Greger avoids triphala because of that study showing triphala guggulu being contamined (lead?). While mercury and other substances are used in Ayurveda, Siddha medicine, Taoism, and perhaps other traditions, it’s not common except for I believe (perhaps doubtful but who knows) longevity purposes or I think cases of late-stage disease. I’ve never heard of ayurvedic doctors using or seen mentioned such substances in common formulas. Of the many many hundreds of formulas of the main Ayurvedic texts, I also do not recall such substances. I’m petty sure it’s soil/source contamination. Plus, it wasn’t triphala tested but triphala guggulu, triphala combined with guggulu (commiphora mukul, related to myrrh). Tree resins/saps such as that (pine tree sap is another I recall, consumed by Taoists) are another previously used food source.




                    0
                2. I think we informally and thus unscientifically instill that bias. Which is more healthful by study, reddaccio or spinach I think in most regards spinach but reddaccio is certainly red and spinach green. A red grape is healthier than green and sometimes colors prove out but not necessarily in overall determinations. Walnuts are real healthy of nuts considered but they are sort of white inside. Far lighter than many nuts. Sulfurathanes may be found in green things but lutens in colored things flavonoids may be a mix. All are beneficial but are differing in result.
                  The peel of a orange may be very beneficial, but it is certainly white as opposed to the inners which is orange. Also beneficia the orange inner l but perhaps more so is the citrus zests or peel.

                  I take it as being a untrue assumption.

                  .




                  0
              2. Most forms of Hindu have us also in this period of deconstruction where life span declines. Most forms of Buddhism as well though they attribute that more to hatred between humans as the cause.

                Sutra I am familiar with prescribes even the color of our sheets so I am certain there is reference in Buddhism but I have never bothered to look for it.
                As mentioned Buddhism initially was mainly a begging for foods thing so monks and nuns were even allowed to eat meat as that is what was given. It was rude to not accept anything. When Buddhism spread to China is when some became strict vegetarians as in China they had to establish permanant residences due to climate. Monks nuns then started to cook to provide meals. In most of India the monks/nuns in that day lived in parks and would migrate by season but no real residencies existed. So they initially never cooked nor had a preference for foods. The Buddha dying by eating mushrooms he had been given by a follower is a example of that. Likely it is thought he knew they were poison but it was offered in good faith. Davadeeta in Buddhism was a relative of the Buddha who abscribed a strict diet for monks and nuns. He was condemned. He later tried to kill the Buddha. I think this was a variance to provide distinction to Jainism a parallel religion of the same time and place who did abscribe to strict vegetarianism. .




                0
          2. I hope to see more posts from you on Dr. Greger’s website. It seems a lot to absorb in these posts you’ve made…. Please continue to post!




            1
              1. This may be lowering the tone of the discussion but I for one would be more comfortable if he/she adopted a new pen name. The current one makes me want to recommend use of Preparation H,




                0
        2. My gosh that is all wonderful.
          Ah pity me….my food buying choices in the nearest town in my semirural area are limited to smiths and Walmart(shudder).
          Yes I could drive here and there but with limited resources and the negative of gas consumption and all that …..

          It really does sound wonderful to be able to go to Asian and indian and all these other markets. WE are all like kings in these places as in the past only kings could get such variance. Glad to see one taking good advantage with it.




          0
      2. Ron

        I have never tried it, but dandelion tea/coffee seems to be widely available and is just dried and shredded or powdered dandelion leaves and/or roots.




        2
        1. Sounds yucky to me TG. I can now eat or drink about anything but I am absolutely stuck on hibiscus tea. Yes I know erodes enamel in teeth may be filled with a excess of one mineral or other……taste good ;) Not the packaged stuff the real stuff dried flowers, with a little bit ofl eriytherriol based sugar sub,.

          I can balance the taste but just alone I would not like it. Creature of my formed habits am I to a degree. Don’t even like the taste of green tea.




          0
          1. Hi Ron

            I like my hibiscus tea also. You could try throwing in a pinch of dandelion tea on occasion when fresh dandelion is out of season.




            0
      3. You can make a decent salad in the spring from newer dandelion growth….just be sure your yard has not been sprayed with herbicide/pesticide. Probably best mixed with regular lettuce though.




        1
      1. I don’t think Dr Greger has done a video on it but maybe he has. One of the newer fads has sauna and cold shocks as being very beneficial. Usually it is coupled in with things from the bone broth crowd(talk about yukky).
        But maybe there is some substance to it just unexamined or studied.
        Makes sense sweat releases toxins..Ammonia we can find in sweat.A toxin.
        I would imagine someone has done a study on the content of sweat at some time. Do not know how in depth they do go however nor if there was a examination for lead. Would it be to small in amount in each sample to study?




        0
    1. I read that most type 1 diabetes cases occur around the age of 14. Since the study only went 10 years, is it to be trusted? What am I missing here?




      0
      1. hi Liisa, It was probably me that is missing the entire point .. butbwhat what came to mind for me is… my dog is allergic to chicken – the vets told me to try hypoallergenic dog food (they sold the product), but I noticed it was made with chicken !.. When I protested, they said the chicken proteins were split into small bits ie unrecognizable to the dog’s system. But it didnt work – not for my dog, and not for some animals I looked after at the kennel. This study mike posted used a casein formula with proteins that were broken up. I read it as no difference between that and regular milk, but perhaps I am very ,uch mistaken.




        0
        1. Oh, I think you are right. So to an infant, milk is milk? Our bodies reputedly take amino acids individually as needed and even reserve them sometimes I understand. So perhaps that is why there was no difference between the broken down milk and regular milk?




          0
    1. Hi Drema, many soy products are fortified with calcium, as are other foods like orange juice and breakfast cereals. They are certainly not bad, and can provide health benefits such as the ones described in this video!




      0
  4. I think the majority of people on this forum are getting old, like me. I am 73 years old. But, bone loss can even effect younger people in their 30’s, 40’s, and 50’s. I think anyone who has posted on this topic of calcium supplements will be interested in watching this 14 minute YouTube video on the application of Wolfe’s Law for the prevention of bone loss and for the prevention of muscle tissue loss. I never heard of Wolfe’s Law until I watched this video. One interesting corollary about Wolfe’s Law is that you can never get any stronger in your muscular system unless you have gained bone density and strength to withstand that muscular peak performance. The implication is that strong men and strong women are only strong PRIMARILY because they have strong bones. This is an absolutely interesting video and this is new information for me even though I have been involved in Body Building since I was 17 years old. Watch the video then come back and comment on what you think about Wolfe’s Law. Hey Tom I am sure you will have some studies to contradict Wolfe’s Law. Can’t wait to hear from you. Ha ha ha
    https://youtu.be/GnK9eO6W1Vk




    0
        1. Gillian,

          I think John means Wolff’s Law. Wolff was a respected German scientist in the 19th century.. However, I had the same reaction as you when I first saw John’s comment because there’s a fairly well known raw food internet guru by the name of David Wolfe. I feared the worst until I watched the video and re-read John’s post.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolff%27s_law




          0
            1. Hi Gillian

              No, the law is basically that bone strength and density will adapt to the loads placed on it. Since tautology is just saying the same thing in two different ways, there is no tautology involved in Wolff’s Law.

              We see Wolff’s Law happening in fat people (they have bigger stronger bones to carry all that additional weight) and, because Neanderthals and CroMagnons had big bones, archaeologists and paleoanthropologists assume they were stronger than modern humans.




              0
          1. Ha ha ha…yes Tom….everyone definitely wants to avoid “the wolf man”
            David Wolfe. He is truly a wolf in sheep’s clothing fleecing those so desperately looking for answers to their health problems and he is sucking up millions of dollars by dispensing useless and even dangerous information and selling supplements just like “the coke man” Mercola.




            2
      1. OK Tom, since you accept Wolff’s Law would you accept the idea that using hand grip strength exercise equipment can lower blood pressure. Here is a supposed scientific paper that says that it will. But, can we really trust the authors of this work? Maybe that are supporting the manufacturers of these exercise devices? Who knows? The plot can really get thick when you investigate health claims. It’s worse than the palace intrigue of King Henry the VIII.

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26558836




        0
        1. It is a misuse of fluctuating blood pressure readings …. which is one of the dangers of people using their own BP devices or indeed a doctor doing a patient’s in a surgery setting where the high reading can be seized on to push meds. Probably best to say exercise has transient effects- period… unless it is part of weight loss. And well people should shrug off the hex put on them by the media profession about BP itself. It is the same with absolute cholesterol readings. Just eat what you know you should, do the exercise you know you should do and stop gazing anxiously and myopically at the internal workings of your wonderful body. If you keep looking for problems you will find them




          0
        2. John. Yes, there are quite a few studies out there which show that the technique is effective. You can even buy special machines which allow you to do the exercises very precisely. They are not cheap. Cheaper than a stroke though.I suppose. On the other hand, you could just squeeze a basic dollar-store hand gripper or a tennis ball as long as you time yourself and can approximate a grip that is 30% of your maximal strength. I think it is 3 x 2 minute exercises per day, 3 times a week although there may be other combinations that have been tested

          Re Darwin’s sensible point about risk from straining, it is worth noting that since these exercises are only done at 30% of maximum pressure, they would not, I think, constitute straining.

          Even Harvard accepts that this technique works.
          https://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletter_article/squeezing-your-way-to-lower-blood-pressure

          I checked all this stuff out years go when I had high BP and it does seem to work. For that matter, so do controlled breathing and some meditation and yoga techniques for that matter. Nobody knows precisely how it seems to work so whether Wolff’s Law plays a role I don’t know.




          0
          1. Tom, that was an excellent report you just shared. You mentioned yoga and meditation. I guess those are the techniques that you advise in order to harness the placebo effect in favor of one’s improved health. Yoga – if you think holding a yoga posture is helping you, then maybe your thinking is actually helping you and the yoga posture is just a crutch for your thinking. On the topic of meditation – everything I have read about it is so nebulous that you could define anything as meditation. But, maybe that is the crux of the matter. Just like Shakespeare said, “Nothing is either right or wrong, but THINKING makes it so. So, in order to harness the placebo effect to enhance our health, we need to think about thinking.




            1
    1. John, The exercise technique in the video you linked to looks a lot like an isometric exercise. I’ve heard that one must be careful when doing those kinds of exercises if you have high blood pressure or have en enlarged aorta. It seems there is a substantial risk of an aortic aneurysm rupturing as a result of isometric exercises. My personal opinion is that mild aerobic exercises are more healthy and safer, especially for seniors.

      Here is a link to one paper where it is stated that anyone with an enlarged aorta should avoid isometric exercises:

      TThe only major lifestyle limitation is that of type of exercise. Isometric exercise, that is to say, straining exercises such as weight lifting, or straining against a fixed object should be discouraged.”

      http://www.ukconsultantcardiologist.co.uk/aortic_diseases.htm




      0
  5. Doctor G, I am standing in the supermarket and they have ketshup with no salt and they have ketshup with no sugar… But there is no brand that does no salt and no sugar, which one should I take?




    0
    1. Buy some tomatoes, roast them down and spice them up, add celery salt, some pureed beet or sweet potato or even pumpkin for sweetness and thin to your liking. Why would you worry about eating well and then try to buy processed sauce?




      1
      1. Yes or simply blend the tomatoes and then reduce the resulting mixture in a pan.

        I am often lazy though and just buy plain tomato paste – no sugar, no salt – and then add vegetables and spices to taste.

        Beetroots are good if you want sweeter ketchup style tomato sauce but I usually want something less sweet and more spicy as pasta sauce.




        0
        1. I forgot Occam’s Razor! You are so right. Buying a good paste/passata and just adding whole foods to it is the way to go. I suppose this reveals how, being a woman, ketchups are not really something that keeps me awake at night. :-) That’s coffee.




          1
  6. Dr. G. I am reading the how not to die cookbook, it’s awesome. But isn’t it a little bit “stupid” to recommend BPA free tins of this and that when the BPA alternatives are possibly even worse?

    Don’t buy tins, period.




    0
  7. In the how not to die cookbook every recipe comes with a picture (I trow away cookbooks that feature recipes without pictures) and the amounts are both in grams as in cups. Good stuff.




    0
  8. Did any pregnant women here not previously supplementing calcium decide to add a supplement after seeing Dr. Greger’s recent video on calcium supplementation and lead during pregnancy and lactation (https://youtu.be/3U7hMhWYZbc)? I’m not sure if I should or not, as he’s already made it clear that whole plant sources of calcium are best.

    But if so, what supplement did you decide on?




    0
  9. Hi,

    What if a nursing mother increased her bone mass while nursing by either weight lifting or gaining weight (you mentioned that that increases bone mass) thereby keeping the lead in the bones?

    Thanks.




    0
  10. Keep in mind that lifting weights and/or gaining weight does not automatically increase bone mass under all circumstances. It does stimulate the various physiologic systems to attempt this, but there is the possibility of overriding this tendency with factors that decrease bone mass such as low vitamin D levels. To my knowledge, there has been no study to evaluate which factors would override the other, and it’s not a good idea to test this in humans. The best strategy would be to follow the advice of Dr. G in the video to reduce calcium release from the bone AND lift weights….carefully and gently.

    Dr. Ben




    0
  11. Some people claim folks with lower blood pressure could die from sodium defficiency and need some kind of food
    high in salt to maintain it. Some woman has told me that they had difficulties during their cycles or period to just
    stay concious because of so-called ”Sodium defficiency”, and they almost passed out. How is this true? They also
    said the sodium is essencial nutrients for some people. I thought lowering salt intake as possible is a good thing for
    everyone. Now I’m a bit confused. Any explanations or good study links please?




    1

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This