This study indicates what we have always suspected about absorbing calcium - getting it from food is better than taking supplements:
http://ap.cjonline.com/pstories/health/ ... 4360.shtml
Tex
Dietary Calcium Is Better For Healthy Bones Than Supplements
Moderators: Rosie, Stanz, Jean, CAMary, moremuscle, JFR, Dee, xet, Peggy, Matthew, Gabes-Apg, grannyh, Gloria, Mars, starfire, Polly, Joefnh
Dietary Calcium Is Better For Healthy Bones Than Supplements
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
Yeah, but the main source they mention is Dairy. :( Other sources aren't as readily absorbed. And the problem with this study is it does not prove cause and effect as they point out but most will miss, most foods fortified with calcium also have D, well D helps one keep/absorb calcium. That and who knows what other things they might not have ruled out. Perhaps folks that get more Calcium in their diet are also more apt to exercise or eat healther foods than those who supplement Calcium.
FWIW I tried lactose free milk yesterday, though I felt fine most of the day, today I feel a little off. Though no D. I'll try milk again when I don't have travels pending. Perhaps even trying Whey or Caisen individually to see if one or the other might be an issue. Thus far tests indicate I don't have a problem with the proteins though the lactose certainly looks to be an issue until my SIBO is resolved.
Mike
FWIW I tried lactose free milk yesterday, though I felt fine most of the day, today I feel a little off. Though no D. I'll try milk again when I don't have travels pending. Perhaps even trying Whey or Caisen individually to see if one or the other might be an issue. Thus far tests indicate I don't have a problem with the proteins though the lactose certainly looks to be an issue until my SIBO is resolved.
Mike
Yes, this was apparently just a preliminary study, and yep, most people think of dairy when they think of dietary calcium, and yep, many foods that supply calcium, are fortified with vitamin D, because vitamin D is known to enhance calcium retention in the body. So why would you want to withhold or remove the vitamin D? If it's in food, and not intentionally added, just for the purposes of the study, then it's dietary nutrition, and perfectly legal for the purposes of the study, as far as I can tell.
I can only assume that if the researchers picked a random, representative population for the study, then the exercise issue is moot. If they selectively chose subjects, then exercise may well have been an issue. Apparently, the researchers kept track of the total amount of calcium intake for each group, so everyone in each respective group was ingesting the same amount of calcium as everyone else in that respective group. If the "dietary calcium" group ate healthier food than the "supplementary calcium" group, then that still helps to prove that the theory is correct, does it not? It proves that real food gives better results than nutritional supplements.
Note that estrogen levels were higher in the two groups that ate dietary calcium. This undoubtedly played a major role in the bone density results, and may, in fact, be the key element that makes the primary difference.
Note also that the group that not only ate "dietary calcium", but also took calcium supplements, showed the highest bone density results, indicating that both methods work. Individually though, dietary calcium was shown to be more effective than supplemental calcium. In the study, it provided better bone density, with lower total calcium intake levels.
I'm sure you're right in pointing out that the study may not have been perfect, but I doubt that it was intentionally skewed, just to discredit calcium supplements.
I tried lactose-free milk back when I was still reacting, and it made me sicker than regular milk. I never have figured out why.
Tex
I can only assume that if the researchers picked a random, representative population for the study, then the exercise issue is moot. If they selectively chose subjects, then exercise may well have been an issue. Apparently, the researchers kept track of the total amount of calcium intake for each group, so everyone in each respective group was ingesting the same amount of calcium as everyone else in that respective group. If the "dietary calcium" group ate healthier food than the "supplementary calcium" group, then that still helps to prove that the theory is correct, does it not? It proves that real food gives better results than nutritional supplements.
Note that estrogen levels were higher in the two groups that ate dietary calcium. This undoubtedly played a major role in the bone density results, and may, in fact, be the key element that makes the primary difference.
Note also that the group that not only ate "dietary calcium", but also took calcium supplements, showed the highest bone density results, indicating that both methods work. Individually though, dietary calcium was shown to be more effective than supplemental calcium. In the study, it provided better bone density, with lower total calcium intake levels.
I'm sure you're right in pointing out that the study may not have been perfect, but I doubt that it was intentionally skewed, just to discredit calcium supplements.
I tried lactose-free milk back when I was still reacting, and it made me sicker than regular milk. I never have figured out why.
Tex
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.