Calcium Hormones

[RRM]

Ok. So basically with every meal that you eat, your body will take up 200mg of calcium if the meal contains 200mg or more.

No, the actual uptake rate (into the blood) is determined by your daily intake (by eating food) of calcium.

So what is an ideal calcium daily allowance/range?
Anywhere from 200 to 1000 mg?

300 to 800 would be perfect.

This also makes me think that since your blood can only take up 200mg with moderate intakes, that there is no 'master' control that limits how much total calcium you ingest throughout the day?
If this is what makes it possible to ingest more than biologically needed, then that makes so much sense!

Your body will always try to take up at least 200 mg, and no more than 300 mg, but when intakes are too high, it can no longer adequately further decrease the absorption rate, hence the greater actual uptake.

How is the body unable to decrease absorption rate with high/excessive amounts consumed?

In as much as it can never take up 100% of the calcium consumed, decreasing the absorption rate also increasingly gets harder as they are already low.

If I ingest 100mg of calcium from a meal, will that only be taken up into the blood and stay only in the blood?
Does that depend upon the calcium-blood level?

that indeed depends on the blood calcium level; if its already (too) high, that extra calcium will be stored before gradually deported.

So it can't just go straight from the intestines to the urine?

No, it is first taken up into the blood.

Do you find it hard to come up with ways to describe complex biochemistry interactions?

The key is understanding. Once you truly understand it, it is not difficult to explain it to others in a simplified way.

Saying it "may be the result" is not a fact, but a theory. And this is the fundamental weakness in Wai's theory. She needs to prove that the osteoblasts are exhausted

That has been proved; that in osteoporosis there is a lack of osteoblast replicative capacity.

, that raw milk has the same effects on bones

It is the extra calcium that has this exhausting effect.
It has been shown that the calcium from raw milk is also very effectively utilized, so that this calcium will have the same effect as calcium from non-raw milk.

All calcium sources are NOT equal. The absoption rate varies
greatly based on the food type and preparation.

Sure, it varies. But studies have shown that the calcium from raw milk is about as effectively utilized as the calcium from non-raw milk.

Aging phenomena are reduced through intermittent fasting and/or calorie restriction, as numerous animal and human models show.

True. That is regarding aging of cells in general.
There is more, however.
There is also cell-specific aging. for example; by exposing your skin to the sun too much, you will accelerate aging of your skin cells. The same applies to all cells; if your overexpose them to what they are specific for (skincells > sunexposure; bonecells > calcium metabolism), you will accelerate their aging.

It has not been shown that high calcium intake exhausts osteoblasts or increases bone turn over. All of this is simply assumed by Wai.

No, this is based on scientific studies.
These studies show that osteoblast activity is higher when calcium intake is higher. And that is why average bone mass is greater in high-calcium consuming countries. If extra calcium would not have this effect, it would never result in greater bone mineral density.

All sources of calcium are unique.

The sources are unique, but the calcium is not.
Studies have shown that the calcium from raw milk is about as effectively utilized as the calcium from non-raw milk.

You can't judge calcium based on modern diets where milk is typically pasteurized, homogenized, low fat, fortified, and otherwise adulterated.

Studies have been performed regarding raw milk specifically.

> Fact 5: In healthy young people (not in elderly), maintaining high BMD comes with high bone turnover rates.

That fact is also questionable. I'm sure we can find some exceptions
in Eskimos, African tribes, and others eating high calcium.

This is a biochemical response, not influenced by culture or genetics.
There are many biochemical processes that are simply facts.
For example: - high blood triglyceride levels will result in storing more of these in adipose fat.
Other example: - high blood glucose levels will result in greater conversion of glucose into glycogen.

We all have those biochemical responses, which are not life style, culture, climate etc related.

The statistics would probably become meaningless when dealing with raw dairy, and maybe full-fat dairy in general.

Its about the influence of calcium on bone metabolism.
If as much calcium is aborbed from raw milk (as from non-raw milk) that calcium will have exactly the same effect inside our body.
If he thinks this is not true; what does he think?
- less calcium is absorbed when drinking raw milk
- more calcium is ingested when drinking raw milk

Im curious as to his belief.

We must consider each type of dairy, and not paint all dairy with the same flawed brush.

Does he think that the calcium from raw milk is a different molecule?

Did you ever find a correlation with exercise and hip fracture rates?
What about amenorhea?

Amenorhea comes with low estrogen: http://www.4.waisays.com/stress-fract.htm and exercise is a topic on the main page
http://www.4.waisays.com/ExcessiveCalcium.htm
(right before the last part about overweight & osteoporosis)

[RRM]

You can't judge calcium based on
modern diets where milk is typically pasteurized, homogenized, low
fat, fortified, and otherwise adulterated.

Not entirely, just as you can't judge cholesterol based only on the heated type of oxycholesterol provided by cooked food. ... so there is reason to focus on this type of calcium and the bad side-effects that it may lead to, because it can explain a lot of common health issues.

What is essential, is that with cholesterol, there is an actual difference, as the molecule has been altered due to the influence of heat, originating oxysterols, which influence cholesterol metabolism.
With calcium this is very different, as calcium is an element, that is exactly the same in raw and non-raw milk; the calcium molecule itself is not altered in anyway. So that once that calcium is taken up in the blood, it will have the same effects on bone metabolism.
The only question is:
How much calcium is ingested and taken up? (from raw milk versus non-raw milk)

I wish I could get my hands on some raw milk. But with travel and cost It's easier to get raw cheese so I do eat a minimal amount every so often.

Why would you want to consume raw milk?
Why would you want to consume raw cheese?
Its bad for you, but if you insist on having them as munchfood, you better only eat full fat, low protein cheese such as mascarpone polenghi.

[avalon]

avalon wrote:
I wish I could get my hands on some raw milk. But with travel and cost It's easier to get raw cheese so I do eat a minimal amount every so often.

RRM wrote:
Why would you want to consume raw milk?
Why would you want to consume raw cheese?
Its bad for you,...

1. I have never had raw milk and would like to try some. For the experience. Is it risky? Maybe. But I'm not sure as there are people on both sides of the fence with enough documentation for both sides. From Weston Price to GoVeg- I'm just finding my way. I'm really not a milk drinker, but would like to try raw milk at least once.

2. I like cheese! Maybe I wasn't ready to give it up and the next, most natural thing is 'RAW' unpasturized cheese.

2.5 The number three key on my keyboard isn't working!
I understand the premise that we are the only beings who continue to drink milk into adulthood. But with some research the answers are less clear as to if it's bad for me. Can you prove this RRM? There are those who say it is the pasturization that causes problems...I don't know.

...but if you insist on having them as munchfood, you better only eat full fat, low protein cheese such as mascarpone polenghi.

This is my cheese of the moment
http://www.organicvalley.coop/products_ ... tml?cat=10
I prefer Monterey Jack, and sometimes mix some samll bits in with my tomato/cucmber salad yum!

[nick]

Your body will always try to take up at least 200 mg, and no more than 300 mg, but when intakes are too high, it can no longer adequately further decrease the absorption rate, hence the greater actual uptake.

As since the absorption rate is a percentage and when intakes are high, the rate may be really low, but you the actual amount taken up could be 300 mg or so.
This makes sense.
More calcium doesn't though!

In as much as it can never take up 100% of the calcium consumed, decreasing the absorption rate also increasingly gets harder as they are already low.

Why can it never take up 100%?
The body just can't meet it's requirement and then totally stop incoming calcium from being absorbed?
I though it could...

that indeed depends on the blood calcium level; if its already (too) high, that extra calcium will be stored before gradually deported.

So even if blood calcium levels are sufficiently high and you just ate a meal that was calcium rich, the body still absorbs some percentage of the intake even though it isn't needed.

And when this extra calcium is absorbed, the body stores it in the bones because it's main goal is to keep calcium levels at 'safe' levels.
Whereas sufficient levels, moderate, are perfect for biologically functional needs.

It is the extra calcium that has this exhausting effect.
It has been shown that the calcium from raw milk is also very effectively utilized, so that this calcium will have the same effect as calcium from non-raw milk.

And even so, the fact that dairy products are more calcium rich on average than any other food group is the main point.

All calcium sources are NOT equal. The absoption rate varies
greatly based on the food type and preparation.

Sure, it varies. But studies have shown that the calcium from raw milk is about as effectively utilized as the calcium from non-raw milk.

Mostly because milk in general doesn't differ greatly of binding or calcium inhibiting substances.
Also, he makes the point that pasteurized, homogenized, fortified milk may even increase the availability of calcium.
I find it funny that he accepts that too much calcium is bad but that raw milk has some magical power to decrease calcium absorption. He doesn't want raw milk to get a bad reputation just because of pasteurized, adulterated milk has a bad one.
But it's about CALCIUM!!!!

True. That is regarding aging of cells in general.
There is more, however.
There is also cell-specific aging. for example; by exposing your skin to the sun too much, you will accelerate aging of your skin cells. The same applies to all cells; if your overexpose them to what they are specific for (skincells > sunexposure; bonecells > calcium metabolism), you will accelerate their aging.

Exactly.
Also, Intermittent Fasting and Calorie Restriction could also be effective when you compare it to a diet that includes overeating which leads to faster aging. When comparing a diet that includes overeating to a diet that you eat only what you need, +/- a little more, then the effects of aging are already decreased.
Much like what you mention in your Live Longer article.

> Fact 5: In healthy young people (not in elderly), maintaining high BMD comes with high bone turnover rates.

That fact is also questionable. I'm sure we can find some exceptions
in Eskimos, African tribes, and others eating high calcium.

This is a biochemical response, not influenced by culture or genetics.
There are many biochemical processes that are simply facts.
For example: - high blood triglyceride levels will result in storing more of these in adipose fat.
Other example: - high blood glucose levels will result in greater conversion of glucose into glycogen.

We all have those biochemical responses, which are not life style, culture, climate etc related.

Is it possible for some races to have an altered on changed biochemical response that may decrease their aging of osteoblasts?
I was reading something about how African Americans are less susceptible to osteoporosis, but I can't remember the details.
I thought this difference could have been the result of an altered biochemical difference.

The statistics would probably become meaningless when dealing with raw dairy, and maybe full-fat dairy in general.

Its about the influence of calcium on bone metabolism.
If as much calcium is aborbed from raw milk (as from non-raw milk) that calcium will have exactly the same effect inside our body.
If he thinks this is not true; what does he think?
- less calcium is absorbed when drinking raw milk
- more calcium is ingested when drinking raw milk

Im curious as to his belief.

Well, I have been trying to get that point across to him!
I give him the benefit of the doubt as I am trying to explain the theory to him but on some points he doesn't understand it.

We must consider each type of dairy, and not paint all dairy with the same flawed brush.

Does he think that the calcium from raw milk is a different molecule?

I think he is a raw milk/dairy advocate and he thinks that you are trying to give dairy a bad name. He hasn't explained to me how calcium from raw milk is somehow different.
He then says that even though fortified milk may have more calcium and a higher bio-availibility, that raw milk shouldn't be given a bad name for that.
But we know that dairy is more calcium rich than any other food group.
Hopefully I can show him the light through polite discussion of the facts.

[Oscar]

Hopefully I can show him the light through polite discussion of the facts.

Unfortunately some people will only understand through hammering in the facts, and some not even then...

[RRM]

2. I like cheese! Maybe I wasn't ready to give it up and the next, most natural thing is 'RAW' unpasturized cheese.

There is nothing natural about consuming products that come from the mother's milk of an other specie that is meant for a young animal, containing all the growth hormones that this suckling needs.

2.5 ... I understand the premise that we are the only beings who continue to drink milk into adulthood. But with some research the answers are less clear as to if it's bad for me. Can you prove this RRM?

By nature, there are no other adult animals that drink milk.
More importantly, we 'steal' mother's milk from other mammals. Mother's milk is meant for sucklings. It contains all kind of groth factors and hormones to stimulate optimum growth in these suckling.
What else is there to prove?

[RRM]

Why can it never take up 100%?

That goes for all vitamins and minerals; its simply impossible to ingest, process and utilize every single molecule present in our food.

The body just can't meet it's requirement and then totally stop incoming calcium from being absorbed?

No, I was trying to say that the higher the absorption rate, that harder it gets to further increase that percentage, and that the same goes for further decreasing the absorption rate when that percentage is already very low.

So even if blood calcium levels are sufficiently high and you just ate a meal that was calcium rich, the body still absorbs some percentage of the intake even though it isn't needed.

Indeed.

And when this extra calcium is absorbed, the body stores it in the bones because it's main goal is to keep calcium levels at 'safe' levels.
Whereas sufficient levels, moderate, are perfect for biologically functional needs.

Exactly.

I was reading something about how African Americans are less susceptible to osteoporosis, but I can't remember the details.
I thought this difference could have been the result of an altered biochemical difference.

Its much more likely that there are other factors involved. Blacks are much more lactose intolerant than whites, for example (thus they drink less milk).