10 posts Page 1 of 1
This article is #1 most emailed on the NYTimes website today on Calcium and Vit D:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/25/healt ... f=homepage

The author was esp critical of calcium sources that are not dairy--that the calcium is too little in most veggies and not absorbed as well (though she mentions that sardines, salmon and fortified foods have a fair amount). I found this disconcerting...
I also find it disconcerting...it also said that calcium rich veggies like kale, spinich and beans, actually block calcium absorption....and I eat alot of spinich....
Sounds like someone getting money through the Dairy industry to me.
Organic veg is best for the best quantities of vit/minerals I think..
Milk has calcium because cows eat grass.
Miss out the milk step and eat your basic whole foods
That stinks of an article with food industry money behind it.
I have read fascinating stuff on the 'brittle bone business' through readings and I feel confident in what I am doing and eating.
I don't eat copious amounts of animal based protiens so I am not peeing my bones down the drain all day..
Go to a third world culture, where diet is simple and starch/whole food based, no brittle borken bones there yet consumption anything between 300-500 mg of calcium a day.
Western diets leads us to destroy our bones by what we eat.
Thanks veg it is too bad that I have to remember how powerful these industries can be.
Thought I'd post this here rather than under a new topic... I've read that the RDI for calcium in Australia is 1000mg (for a male of my age) --- I know that bony fish where you eat the bones can give you a fair bit of calcium, but I too noted that although leafy green vegetables have a reasonable amount of calcium compared to other parts of the diet but I'm strugglng to see how I can reach that figure without enormous effort, and I struggle to understand logically how my now more traditional diet that, as recommended by George, is plant-based and whole-food based with seafood etc would then require so much effort to reach the RDI value. I think that if I stress and worry about it a lot and focus on the calcium intake at the expense of counting other things I might be able to do it.

So I guess what I'm saying is, with a healthy degree of scepticism, can the 1000mg figure be right? Is the dairy lobby so powerful? I suspect that the answer to the second question is "yes" but what I'd really like to know is what is the real figure --- what should I be aiming for?

I read that a recent study found that Australians are generally getting around 850mg --- it's possible, as George suggests in the book, that the osteoporosis problems are due mainly to lack of vitamin D then, so I'd be tempted to revise the RDI down to 850mg --- but most of those surveyed were surely consuming dairy products on a daily basis.

Anyone have any ideas? Maybe I should look at RDI values recommended in countries that traditionally consume less dairy products? Are their any studies that we can trust on this topic? I believe the comment about the Recovery Plan diet containing adequate calcium provided there is enough vitamin D but I'd like to verify that my actual diet which follows those guidelines does in fact have adequate calcium? I know that I can consume fortified products, but to me that sounds like supplementation, which ought to be unnecessary on this diet, right?

Alexd perhaps reading the China Study would give you somethng to ponder if you havent alrealdy read it.
Dx 1992 OMS 25-2-09
Thanks Kashu,

Just had a brief look at some reviews and even extracts from the book. All I can say based on that is "Wow!" I am very grateful to you for this. The graph of the incidence of bone fractures versus calcium intake with a number of countries as data points was very, very telling --- and the opposite of what we've been raised to believe in Australia anyway. I'm a bit of numbers person, so while I didn't find a new RDI in there (haven't got a complete copy yet, though), I was very interested in the fact that if I consume the same amount of energy from plants rather than animal-based foods I would get twice the amount of calcium anyway. I'll have to check my sums, I suppose... I seem to be losing a lot of weight on this diet (which I can't really afford to lose) so I suspect that if I get the energy intake right I just don't have to worry about the calcium, so maybe that's the point. Still hoping someone will come up with a revised RDI though :)

Before being diagnosed (just after Christmas), I hadn't really read a lot about the relationship between diet and disease. The relationship to weight loss, etc, sure, but not to disease. So I'm still starting on this journey and have a lot more to read and learn. To be honest, my brother had had a hard time with the disease, so initially I didn't feel I needed to read much more about it and had pretty much given up at first, but after getting my free copy of George's book through MS Australia and doing some other reading before that arrived I feel a bit better about it.

I got the book from the Library; if you read it you will see that they don't have it all right but it is well worth reading never the less.

You are so fortunate that you get a free copy in Aussie of George's book. I wish I had it when I was diagnosed in 1994.
Even George had not been diagnosed at that stage but there was still Swanks work around, perhaps I could have avoided the damage so far if I had been directed there.

Let's hope that here in NZ the MS Society will soon do the same; at this stage I can only find an obscure reference to George (with this sites' link) on the Society's website section on sat. fats. Unless I have missed a decent referrene to the Program of course ;)

I wonder if you need to bulk up on some of the more startchy veges and pulses to maintain your weight?
Dx 1992 OMS 25-2-09
I reckon we need to snack a fair bit too, because our bodies digest low-fat food more quickly, so we need to top up between meals with fruit, nuts, raw carrots etc. I certainly snack more than I used to (after nearly fainting a couple of times and realising I needed more energy) - but I'm definitely slimmer
Weight is a strange perception.
I am slim, was slim anyway, but extra slim now. But normal is now overweight to look at. so perhaps don't let that cloud where you think you are with concern over losing weight. Just think that pretty much everyone around us is in fact overweight, it is not normal even if common.
Macdougal.com is a good read after reading The China Study.
I snack lots :)
10 posts Page 1 of 1

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests