Re: More than 75% of Americans are calcium deficient

Carole wrote:

"PeterB" <pkm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1144849338.692421.211220@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



Our resident pharma bloggers say I use that term only to describe those
I disagree with, but here (once again) I'll prove them wrong. I have
to disagree in the strongest terms possible with this article. In
China, where daily intake of calcium is roughly 300mg, osteoporosis is
virtually unknown, despite the absence of supplemental calcium and more
than minimal access to dairy. The USDA promotion of 1,000 - 1,200mg
calcium daily appears to be the product of dairy industry influence,
and it is *causing*, not preventing disease. If 400-500mg of calcium
is being lost daily to urinary excretion, adding 1,200mg of calcium is
simply going to increase the volume of loss. That's no way to treat or
prevent disease. Clinical data show that 3mg of boron daily prevents
loss of essential calcium, so if people are losing large amounts of
calcium, they should look at their overall levels of nutrient intake,
and modify their diets to provide balance, using supplements sparingly.
We can also look at this genetically. Our ancestors (those we are
gentically identical with) had no access to dairy, and no access to
supplements. They also expended enormous amounts of energy foraging
for plant and animal foods, and they didn't eat well on a daily basis.
While we can't know how much calcium they were ingesting on a daily
basis, it's safe to assume that levels made possible by use of dairy,
supplements, and abundant food access are creating a large disparity in
favor of excess. I doubt our ancestors had intake of calcium higher
than 500mg daily. Also remember that a synergist-antagonist
relationship exists between ALL nutrients. Mega-dosing upsets the
natural balance of nutrients to one another, unless you supplement all
of them in correspondingly large amounts. This can result in the very
diseases you are trying to prevent. Excess calcium, for instance, can
have the *same* effect as too little calcium, due to its antagonist
relationship to magnesium. A food study I did also contradicts the
widely held view that calcium should be taken in a ratio to magnesium
of 2:1. Regardless whether you are vegan, vegetarian, or a meat eater,
a wide selection of natural foods in relative proportions shows the
ratio should be .85:1, meaning slightly LESS calcium is required than
magnesium. So when you read an article proclaiming that 75% of
Americans are calcium deficient simply because most Americans don't
consume the recommended (but scientifically unproven) 1,200mg of
calcium daily, you need to ask yourself who is promoting that idea, and
why.

PeterB



Sorry PeterB but I'm going to go with the surgeon-general on this one.
As they say, the effects of osteoporosis don't necessarily show up until it
is too late.

Vernon is wrong too and the surgeon general is right - such a wise fellow.

And when the Surgeon General says things you don't agree with? Let me guess, then he is a dumbed down scientists controlled by 'them'.

See his report at
http://www.calciuminfo.com/pdf/SG_2004_BoneHealthReport.pdf

If it has been determined that 75% of people don't get enough calcium, who
am I to argue with that?

Carole, that's *science* that has determined that. Conventional, dumbed down, mind-controlled science. You are *the* person to argue with that. Why aren't you doing just that?

But of course the other cellsalts are necessary too to keep it in balance.

And calcium does more than just build bones, it detoxifies from
environmental pollutants and is the antidote for sodium fluoride poisoning
amongst other things. Maybe China doesn't have so much pollution as the
west?

Pollution in China is much worse. There is no EPA, nothing. Waste is dumped everywhere, in the air, the water, the land. Foodpoisoning from contaminated food (and just e. coli, but also pesticides) is common etc.

L. Ron Hubbard used the cal-mag formula in his purification rundown to
eliminate drugs and environmental toxins from the body. I think you've lost
the argument.

LRH wouldn't be a credible sourse for the time of day.

Carole
http://www.cellsalts.net
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Calcium: Build a Better Body
    ... Preserving bone health in women is not as simple as popping a calcium pill. ... Food is the best source of calcium because of other essential nutrients found in high-calcium food." ... In timing your calcium supplements, she notes that caffeine, for example, can interfere with its absorption. ... She explains the body requires a complement of minerals for bone health, plus nutrients that help transport the minerals into tissues and bones. ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • Re: Calcium: Build a Better Body
    ... Preserving bone health in women is not as simple as popping a calcium ... in high-calcium food.? ... Use supplements ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • Calcium: Build a Better Body
    ... Preserving bone health in women is not as simple as popping a calcium ... These should be taken with food: ... Use supplements ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • Re: Questioning the USDA Recommendations for Calcium
    ... In China, where daily intake of calcium is roughly 300mg, osteoporosis ... supplements sparingly. ... don't know about china. ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • Re: Total amount of Calcium need?
    ... supplements per my MD's advise. ... He said it is too hard to count how much you get in the food or milk that you ingest. ... He/she can't possibly know how much calcium your body needs, ...
    (sci.med.diseases.osteoporosis)