In message ID <3iuknp…@redhotmomma.ssr.com> on 2/28/95, Scott Ballantyne
wrote:
: In article <2500329438.777…@lamg.com> P_Iann…@lamg.com (Paul
: Iannone) writes: >
: > An interesting idea. But to claim that such calcium carbonate
: mixed with acid > will be better absorbed than a chelate is simply a
: misconception. Chemical > chelation produces a superior supplement
: than an acid solution that happens > to contain calcium. This is
: really only a twist on taking your calcium > supplement with orange
: juice. Which is a good idea. But hardly the best idea. >
:
: Chelated calcium (calcium and amino acids) is well absorbed but it
: tends to be secreted in the urine, because there is no phosphorus with
: it to aid bone deposition. I don’t know whether or not it is better
: absorbed than Ca in an acid solution, I doubt whether P. Iannone
: does either.
:
: In any case, too much phosphorus will reduce Ca absorption. Milk
: contains good amounts of both…
:
: sdb
You are arguing that Americans have phosphorus inadequacies? Hard to believe.
Anyhow, the issue was absorption, not deposition, so this is a bait and
switch tactic so you can go the long way around and bite me on the back. Yes,
chelates, especially acid chelates are better absorbed than acid/calcium
mixtures. I would argue that the effect of bicarbonate on the free acid is
considerably higher than on the relatively neutral acid-chelates, which will
then dissociate at the brush border. If we had to fight over this I could
probably find a study on Calcium citrate absorption compared to carbonate and
orange juice.
P_Iann…@lamg.com (Paul Iannone, P.O.B. 66843, L.A., CA 90066).
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
In article <2500329438.1871…@lamg.com> P_Iann…@lamg.com (Paul Iannone) writes:
> In message ID <3iuknp…@redhotmomma.ssr.com> on 2/28/95, Scott Ballantyne
> wrote:
> :
> : Chelated calcium (calcium and amino acids) is well absorbed but it
> : tends to be secreted in the urine, because there is no phosphorus with
> : it to aid bone deposition. I don’t know whether or not it is better
> : absorbed than Ca in an acid solution, I doubt whether P. Iannone
> : does either.
> :
> : In any case, too much phosphorus will reduce Ca absorption. Milk
> : contains good amounts of both…
> :
> : sdb
> You are arguing that Americans have phosphorus inadequacies? Hard to believe.
> Anyhow, the issue was absorption, not deposition, so this is a bait and
> switch tactic so you can go the long way around and bite me on the back.
Of course you are right – here in alt.med we are *primarily*
interested in absorbing as much calcium as possible – whether or not it
actually gets deposited as bone is of purely secondary
interest. However, in the *real* world, where the rest of us spend
most of our time, the reason we are interested in absorbing calcium is
precisely so we can ward off things like osteoporosis – we do that by
depositing it on our bones, not secreting it in our urine.
And your paranoid delusions to the contrary – I have absolutely no
interest in biting you on the back – even metaphorically, the image
repulses me.
sdb
—
s…@ssr.com
In message ID <3jh20m$…@redhotmomma.ssr.com> on 3/7/95, Scott Ballantyne
wrote:
: In article <2500329438.1871…@lamg.com> P_Iann…@lamg.com (Paul
: Iannone) writes:
:
: > In message ID <3iuknp…@redhotmomma.ssr.com> on 2/28/95, Scott
Ballantyne
: > wrote:
: > :
: > : Chelated calcium (calcium and amino acids) is well absorbed but it
: > : tends to be secreted in the urine, because there is no phosphorus with
: > : it to aid bone deposition. I don’t know whether or not it is better
: > : absorbed than Ca in an acid solution, I doubt whether P. Iannone
: > : does either.
: > :
: > : >>>>>>>In any case, too much phosphorus will reduce Ca
absorption.<<<<<<< Milk
: > : contains good amounts of both…
: > :
: > : sdb
: >
: > You are arguing that Americans have phosphorus inadequacies? Hard
: to believe. > Anyhow, the issue was absorption, not deposition, so
: this is a bait and > switch tactic so you can go the long way around
: and bite me on the back.
:
: Of course you are right – here in alt.med we are *primarily*
: interested in absorbing as much calcium as possible – whether or not
: it actually gets deposited as bone is of purely secondary interest.
: However, in the *real* world, where the rest of us spend most of our
: time, the reason we are interested in absorbing calcium is precisely
: so we can ward off things like osteoporosis – we do that by
: depositing it on our bones, not secreting it in our urine.
You’re sneaking away from a lost point. "Too much phosphorus will reduce
absorption." Who cares? All we’re interested in in the real world is
deposition? Not really. If you can’t absorb it, you can’t deposit it. Or is
that too ‘fantastic’ an ‘alt.med.’ logic for your taste?
: And your paranoid delusions to the contrary – I have absolutely no
: interest in biting you on the back – even metaphorically, the image
: repulses me.
:
: sdb
P_Iann…@lamg.com (Paul Iannone, P.O.B. 66843, L.A., CA 90066).
In article <2500329438.1331…@lamg.com> P_Iann…@lamg.com (Paul Iannone) writes:
> You’re sneaking away from a lost point. "Too much phosphorus will reduce
> absorption." Who cares? All we’re interested in in the real world is
> deposition? Not really. If you can’t absorb it, you can’t deposit it. Or is
> that too ‘fantastic’ an ‘alt.med.’ logic for your taste?
I’m not sure what you’re after here. You’re correct about chelated
calcium being well absorbed. You neglected to mention that this does
not necessarily lead to deposition, which *is* what most people are
interested in when they investigate calcium supplements. That it’s not
quite as simple as you made it out to be is due to chemistry – try not
to take it personally.
sdb
—
s…@ssr.com
Scott Ballantyne (s…@ssr.com) wrote:
> In article <2500329438.1331…@lamg.com> P_Iann…@lamg.com (Paul Iannone) writes:
> > You’re sneaking away from a lost point. "Too much phosphorus will reduce
> > absorption." Who cares? All we’re interested in in the real world is
> I’m not sure what you’re after here. You’re correct about chelated
> calcium being well absorbed. You neglected to mention that this does
> not necessarily lead to deposition, which *is* what most people are
It was my understanding that part of the problem may be a lack of
magnesium. I have heard that you have to have closer to a 1:1 balance
between the two to form strong bones. I have also read (Science News,
late 80′s,) that there is too much lead in most cow bone based
suppliments, as opposed to the dolomite mineral suppliments. The reason
given in the old article was grazing too close to the highways. Wonder
what that does to the milk… Another article about that time frame
said they also feed some of these cows old newspapers…
I am not too well versed on calcium magnesium ratios. Comments anyone?
-JVV- (John Jav…@netcom.com)
CAUTION: I’m no doctor, I only tell computers what to do.
Nothing in this document should be construed as medical advice.
For long lasting relief, consult a doctor who practices
orthomolecular medicine. Ask, and I’ll recommend mine.
For referal and bibliography, send e-mail to jav…@netcom.com,
subject being REQ, the message being a single line:
RFCsend your-email-address
(Do substitute your email address in the line above…)
My opinions are subject to the availability of information.
I learn new things each day, and so may change my opinions.
—
In <javilkD5DMHo….@netcom.com> jav…@netcom.com (Javilk) writes:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
>Scott Ballantyne (s…@ssr.com) wrote:
>> In article <2500329438.1331…@lamg.com> P_Iann…@lamg.com (Paul
Iannone) writes:
>> > You’re sneaking away from a lost point. "Too much phosphorus will
reduce
>> > absorption." Who cares? All we’re interested in in the real world
is
>> I’m not sure what you’re after here. You’re correct about chelated
>> calcium being well absorbed. You neglected to mention that this does
>> not necessarily lead to deposition, which *is* what most people are
> It was my understanding that part of the problem may be a lack of
>magnesium. I have heard that you have to have closer to a 1:1 balance
>between the two to form strong bones. I have also read (Science News,
>late 80′s,) that there is too much lead in most cow bone based
>suppliments, as opposed to the dolomite mineral suppliments. The
reason
>given in the old article was grazing too close to the highways. Wonder
>what that does to the milk… Another article about that time frame
>said they also feed some of these cows old newspapers…
> I am not too well versed on calcium magnesium ratios. Comments
anyone?
>-JVV- (John Jav…@netcom.com)
>CAUTION: I’m no doctor, I only tell computers what to do.
>Nothing in this document should be construed as medical advice.
>For long lasting relief, consult a doctor who practices
>orthomolecular medicine. Ask, and I’ll recommend mine.
>For referal and bibliography, send e-mail to jav…@netcom.com,
>subject being REQ, the message being a single line:
> RFCsend your-email-address
>(Do substitute your email address in the line above…)
>My opinions are subject to the availability of information.
>I learn new things each day, and so may change my opinions.
>–
>I’m not totally sure about the ratio, John, but you’re close at least.
The important thing here is the nasty little trick calcium has of
pulling iron, zinc, magnesium, etc. and dumping it all in the urine. The
most important consideration is to isolate the calcium from the
magnesium by at least 2 hours, so the Mg has time to get absorbed.
Those multi – multi compounds often contain biological antagonists all
in the same tablet or capsule. The consumer says, "Yeah, I take calcium,
magnesium, etc." What he doesn’t say is that it does no good!! If the
bone doesn’t "stitch" itself together a la collagen, it will still
become porous. Calcium is only _one_ of the elements needed.
In message ID <javilkD5DMHo….@netcom.com> on 3/13/95, Javilk wrote:
: It was my understanding that part of the problem may be a lack of
: magnesium. I have heard that you have to have closer to a 1:1
: balance between the two to form strong bones. I have also read
: (Science News, late 80′s,) that there is too much lead in most cow
: bone based suppliments, as opposed to the dolomite mineral
: suppliments. The reason given in the old article was grazing too
: close to the highways. Wonder what that does to the milk…
: Another article about that time frame said they also feed some of
: these cows old newspapers…
: I am not too well versed on calcium magnesium ratios. Comments anyone?
Where do you buy your calcium? Cow bone is not a common source for calcium!
Chalk is plentiful, and is the source for most of the calcium on the market
(before modification in the particular product). Dolomite has the lead issue
associated with it, which is why it is not commonly used by savvy consumers.
P_Iann…@lamg.com (Paul Iannone, P.O.B. 66843, L.A., CA 90066).