Page 2 of 2

Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 5:16 pm
by Ironman
I did read it. Like I said in the previous post. I have seen other articles and research say the opposite (not the one from the 70's). In other words I think it's all a load of crap. I understand calcium depletion. I also understand bunk when I see it. Do you understand the people ate protein powder? Do you understand they had little else and had a deficiency in vitimin A and D. Without those you can't use calcium. That is why it was leached from the bones so to speak.

Myth busting is not a question of modesty. I just don't have the desire or the time to post links every time someone posts some bogus study with an agenda. I did read it, I do understand it. I don't beleive it and I don't really care. It has about the same credibility as that aspartame quack at

I am actually the say-all and end-all by proxy. I simpley read what the actual say-all end-all people write. Then I get an understanding of it, repeat it and use it. You need the BS detectors on max though. If it is at the end of the news I also ignore it. All that stuff where something is great and then the next week it is going to kill you. Lot's of junk science out there. Lot's of junk science with an agenda too.

Posted: Tue Apr 25, 2006 11:43 pm
by Guest
I think it's time for some more examples.

The Bantu women of Africa live on a sparse diet of vegetable sources. A diet completely free of dairy foods. Their average intake of calcium is 250 to 400 mg a day. This is far lower than the 800 mg. recommended by the RDA. They give birth to as many as ten babies during their life. Each child is breast-fed for ten months. Although childbearing causes an intense calcium drain, osteoporosis is unknown to these people. When Bantu women migrate to the city and adopt a protein-rich diet, osteoporosis and other diseases become a threat to their health.

In 1984, the Medical Tribune reported studies by Michigan State and other universities regarding bone densities. It was the most extensive study yet undertaken. They discovered that, in the United States, at age 65, male vegetarians averaged a 3% bone loss. Male meat-eaters averaged a 7% bone loss. Female vegetarians averaged an 18% bone loss. Female meat-eaters averaged a 35% bone loss. The conclusion was that vegetarians were found to have significantly stronger bones.

The Inuit people, who live on a very high-protein diet, have the greatest calcium intake of any population. Yet, they also have one of the highest rates of osteoporosis.

Osteoporosis is a result of a negative calcium balance caused by the body using calcium to neutralize the continuous quantities of acidic mixtures that enter the bloodstream.

One of the first to issue a warning against low-carbohydrate diets was the American Heart Association, which in 2001 issued a report about the health consequences of high protein diets.9 According to the AHA, restricting carbohydrate levels while consuming large amounts of protein-rich foods that are high in fat can increase the risk of heart disease, high cholesterol, diabetes, stroke and certain kinds of cancer. In taking this action, AHA reviewed the protein and fat levels of many of the most popular low-carb diets, finding that most of these plans greatly exceed the AHA's dietary guidelines of 15 to 20 percent protein and only 10 percent saturated fats a day. For example, the Atkins Diet allows 68 percent of the overall diet to come from fat with 26 percent of from saturated fat.

Also recognizing the potential health consequences of low-carbohydrate diets is the American Kidney Fund,10 which in 2002 warned that high-protein diets have the potential to cause scarring in the kidneys, which have to process more wastes from excess protein. Based on new research conducted on endurance runners whose kidneys were studied after being on a high-protein diet, AKF stated: "We have long suspected that high-protein weight loss diets could have a negative effect on the kidneys and now we have research to support our suspicions. Dehydration forces the kidneys to work harder to clean toxins from the blood."

Writing in the Sept. 3, 1982 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, researchers Dr. Barry Branner and Timothy Meyer state that "undigested protein must be eliminated by the kidneys. This unnecessary work stresses out the kidneys so much that gradually lesions are developed and tissues begin to harden." In the colon, this excess protein waste putrefies into toxic substances, some of which are absorbed into the bloodstream. Dr. Willard Visek, Professor of Clinical Sciences at the University of Illinois Medical School, warns, "A high protein diet also breaks down the pancreas and lowers resistance to cancer as well as contributes to the development of diabetes."

Anyone successfully indoctrinated by the meat and dairy industry's nutritional education would be puzzled by the numerous studies finding osteoporosis, a calcium deficiency that makes the bones porous and brittle, is very prominent among people with high consumption of both protein and calcium. For example, the March 1983 Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that by age 65, the measurable bone loss of meat-eaters was five to six times worse than of vegetarians. The Aug. 22, 1984 issue of the Medical Tribune also found that vegetarians have "significantly stronger bones."

In the book "Realities for the 90's", there is a list of some of the world's greatest athletes, all holders of world records in their field, who happen to be vegetarians: Dave Scott, six-time winner of the Ironman Triathlon (and the only man two win it more than twice); Sixto Linares, world record holder in the 24-hour triathlon; Paavo Nurmi, 20 world records and nine Olympic medals in distance running; Robert Sweetgall, world's premier ultra-distance walker; Murray Rose, world records in the 400 and 1500-meter freestyle; Estelle Gray and Cheryl Marek, world record in cross-country tandem cycling; Henry Aaron, all-time major league home run champion; Stan Price, world record holder in the bench press; Andreas Cahling, Mr. International body building champion; Roy Hilligan, Mr. America body building champion; Ridgely Abele, eight national championships in karate; and Dan Millman, world champion gymnast... all vegetarians.

I'm still not convinced by your arguments.

Posted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 2:51 am
by KPj
I can't comment too much on the technical details, but as someone who has a high protein intake, I disagree. Mainly because I know people of all ages with high protein intake e.g train/trained in a similar way to myself - bodybuilding. Never known anyone to have any problems and infact, the older guys I know, in my view increase your motivation due to their age and what they lift etc - none of these guys are vegetarians, but i'm not saying being a vegetarian is a bad thing. Just that the guys I know encourage high protein intake.

Anyway, I found this article and thought it was relevant, ... s-1a.shtml
In summary, calcium retention or excretion is dependent on additional key factors besides protein consumption. To fully assess the net effect requires an analysis of the entire diet and lifestyle in its overall context rather than focusing on any one factor in isolation.

Posted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 5:44 am
by elemental
I don't think this issue is so cut and dry as to say one way or the other is best or safer or more dangerous or anything like that. I think there are more variables in play than are being looked at by science today. The results may be very different from on 30 something female to the next. Calcium "lose" could be a function of decrease vitamin-D intake, or disporportionate vitamin-D intake, or a genetic glitch or age related problem.

My point is, just like with anything else in life, there probably isn't a one size fits all answer.

Consuming calicium in now means you body can use it. There are things like Vitamin-D and some other nturients that need to accompany calcium intake in order for your body to uptake it. The research I've seen tends to either be on people with existing problems, fails to take in account the nutrients needed for proper uptake, or points to other dietary deficiencies (meaning the body is saping calcium from the bones because its not able to get enough by other means).

That inuit agruement is old hat. Not saying it isn't possible to eat a diet like they did (eating nothing but meat, guts and fats from fish and game) but its obivously not optimal and you likely don't have the genetics (from centuries of evolution) to get by on it. Today's inuits DO EAT FRUITS AND VEGGIES!

k, i'm done

Posted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 8:57 am
by Ironman
Yea, it does seem like a paradox. The thing is exercise is the key to bone density/mass. For example, those body fat calculators that use impedence to measure fat levels, they have a different setting for athletes to allow for the greater impedence from the extra bone mass. Those are just people who do a fair ammount of activity, even people who don't lift weights. Now weight lifting leads to much greater bone mass.

Every few years (I forget how many) your skeliton is completely replaced. Your body adds and removes bone all the time. It works on keeping you as light as possible. So anywhere that it can remove bone, it does so. It also ads bone to areas that take a lot of stress. So, if you are sedentary, you just lose more and more bone mass. Then you are at risk for breaks. If you do a lot of weight lifting, you have thick, dense bones.

This issue is taken to extreme in space. Astronauts have a terrible problem with loss of muscle and bone mass. So much so that NASA is working on a machine they can spin around in to get some gravity exposure to prevent these problems.

Posted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 11:05 am
by elemental

Posted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 4:05 pm
by Ironman
Interesting. That part about the buffer is right. The funny thing is, the studies they site are flawed for exactly that reason. They gave people protein sources without any sort of buffer, so calcium from the bones were used. The fact of the matter is, meat has lots of other nutrients that act as a buffer.

The other odd thing is they think the American diet is high in protein. While they are right about the low fruit and veg part, American diets are more bready then anything else.

Here are some interesting links. ... p?id=37787 ... rotein-has ... m_id=11696 ... 182005.asp

Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 5:53 am
by TimD
This is a great debate you two have going on. I only wish more people would read it. I'm with Elemental on the fruit and veg, but I'm also with Ironman with his thoughts on breas, pasta's, etc. How do I say this? You're both right. Currently my eating habits are in between what you're saying. I throw in fruit and veg to get full, but if I'm not hungry, I might just do some cottage cheese and salmon. Keep on.

Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 12:25 pm
by elemental
So lets look at variety. We seem to all be somewhat aware the a carb isn't just a carb, a protein isn't just a protein and fat isn't just a fat. There are good proteins and bad proteins. The key to making your veggies work for you is variety. Don't pick 3-4 veggies you can handle and stick with them the rest of your life. Try new veggies and new combos of veggies. Steam them, stew them, boil and brew them. Get em crunchy, handy munchies and a whole bunches.

Lets apply that to protein. Combine beans and legumes and you get a whole protein source, the complement each other. You know broccoli, one of Adam Sandler's better songs. Its got protein in it. Lots of veggies have incomplete protein packages. You get whey and casein protein (powder people recognize these) from dairy products. "Ya but you get fat too!" Ya! YOU NEED FAT LARD ASS! eh hm, sorry... anyway, get the good proteins from lean meat sources, but vary them. Eat good fish with good fat complexes, eat range fed chicken, omega3 enriched eggs (find the ones where they enriched the chickens not the eggs). All good proteins, you can get them with good fats. But wait... Instead of every protein serving being a meat source, have beans and legumes (you pick your own varieties). Through in some soy products (tofu, blech!).

The word Balance implies variety. With out variety there is nothing to balance. Inuits didn't have any thing to balance, the human physicality is a wonderous adaptive machine. Once they had more variety available to them, they used it.

When I choose veggies, I think of the rainbow. I get my greens, yellows, reds, white (are mushrooms veggies?), etc. etc. when I get fats I mix it up too, fish, flax, dairy, the little i get from lean meats.

What I'm getting at is that I don't think its the amount of protein, I think its package that comes with it. Its natures way. She packages everything on this planet into little systematic cycles. Rice with the germ and endosprem is a bagilion times better for you than Minute Rice. Why? Cause those parts that got striped out contain most of the vitamins and minerals that make processing the grain more efficient and better on your system. Exercise, diet and mental health are a bagilion times better for you when you do them all instead of 1 or 2. Add in spiritual work and its a bagilion times better again. Summer sucks ass unless the surrounding seasons do their part (reprocutions I think we may finally be seeing, then again it could just be a 150 year cycle or something).

So figure out a good starting place, I need 3000 calories a day. I'd like to start at 50/30/20 P/C/F. Break it down to grams. Now instead of eating a huge animal protein source and trying to balance it the right combo of veggies and what not, eat 1/2 or 1/3 the same portion of animal protein and through in some beans and protein containing veggies... wait wait what? The carbs, the fats, the proteins, the proportions are close! HOLY SANDWICH SLAYER BATMAN!

The prehistoric diets (that's really what the are, our guess at what those people were eating) show massive quantity and massive variety (at least from those who didn't camp out on the tundra). Early historic diets show lots of meats (lean and fatty), huge amounts of ORGANIC veggies and healthy fats. Today modern diet is a bunch of processed, freeze dried, sailed across the globe and back, chemical soked mash of put me in the grave all broken and smelly CRAP!

You know what else studies have shown? Gardening adds longevity to your life. Hey, I can save money, fix my acidosis, rack up on micronutrients and phytochemicals, add new flavor and texture to my meals, eat all the meat I need and have a skull thick enough to say that you can't prove eating veggies is bad for me, all while living long enough to watch them lower your smelly lumpy discolored thin boned butt in the ground?

Why fight it? Just eat the good stuff and nothing but the good stuff, so help you God. If the world can't handle, they can bugger off.

Here's the thing, before we (by that I mean humans) tried make all this diet and nutrition stuff better, is when it was at its best. Everything you need comes from or survives because of vegitation (EVEN INUITS, what did the fish and game they ate eat?). Since when were you not a part of this? We have the biological tools to eat both meat and veggies, what makes you some much smarter than God or Nature that you think you don't need them both? And in abundace!

I'm gonna look at this next idea more closely. If instead of looking at P/C/F I'm gonna look at Meat/Veggie. Balance that equation and I bet P/C/F takes care of it self.

P.S. there were no personal jibes in there. Just kinda turned into a rant at some point. I'm gonna shut up for a few days now...

Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:44 pm
by TimD
Good rant. I'm still laughing, However, as a moderatoor, just keep it in check. Thanks


Posted: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:54 am