Calcium and Animal Protein news - incl. Osteo

[Timber Loftis]

A while back I got in a wrangle over the fact that milk strips more calcium from the body than it adds. This "acidosis" effect of animal products is the subject of research, and may affect women more than men, as osteo is a concern. Check it out:
http://thesoydailyclub.com/Research/ars03282003.asp

[Attalus]

"Soy happy to see you???" [img]graemlins/1puke.gif[/img] Timber, that is all highly speculative. The body's ability to handle acid:base balance is much more dependant on carbon dioxide levels than calcium phosphate, and is mainly a respiratory function.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Attalus: "Soy happy to see you???" [img]graemlins/1puke.gif[/img] Timber, that is all highly speculative. The body's ability to handle acid:base balance is much more dependant on carbon dioxide levels than calcium phosphate, and is mainly a respiratory function.

A. Just because the article was on a soy site doesn't mean it did not reference relevant scientific studies.
B. That site, BTW, is not eco-nazi, and is actually supported by your favorite big-name agri-business soy producers, including such midwestern favorite polluters as Monsanto and ADM. Both of whom my firm represent, so I best shut up....
C. I suspect you didn't read the article, as the limits of our current understanding were pretty well discussed therein, I do believe.
D. I don't think you'd suggest that acid which makes it to the liver is dealt with by any other means than taking calcium from the blood and bones.
(edit)
E. Also, I am just cautioning against over-eating animal protein. Do you deny that most people eat too much animal protein and could use a little dietary balancing? I am watching my grandmother suffer osteo, this has little to do with a personal agenda, and I am simply trying to be informative and helpful. I realize your prejudices may cause you to lash at the vegetarian-speak I sometimes use, but am I really attempting to lead the flock astray here in this instance?

[ 05-01-2003, 02:28 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Attalus]

Actually, I did read the article, and was imressed on how up-front it was that we don't really know what causes osteoporosis. But, acid is produced in the stomach in much, much larger quantites than meat metabolism produces, and pancreatic secretions of a highly alkaline kind neutralize it, and give the intestinal contents a generally alkaline character. Blood that flows from the veins of the intestine, bearing fats, carbohydrates, etc., extracted from food drain directly into the portal vein and thenc into the parechyma of the liver, with no contact with bone possible. By the time it has exited from the liver, bearing that cholesterol and those triglycerides that we all know and love, it flows through the Hepatic Vein and into the inferior vena cava, and thence to the heart, where it is pumped into the lungs, and it's acid;base balance restored. Then, and only then, can it go to the bones. That's the part I have trouble with.
And, if you can make fun of articles on NRO, I can make fun of your soy-moo sites. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[Timber Loftis]

Sorry, Attalus, yours truly the non-doctor misspoke. "D" above should say KIDNEY, not liver. I thought that in the KIDNEY the acid was a big issue, and that calcium was taken from elsewhere to neutralize the acid once it made it to the kidney. Does this change your answer?

Soy-moo. Okay, that got a chuckle.

[Attalus]

Well, the kidney is a whole different kettle of fish. Under some circumstances, calcium carbonate and other substances leached from the bone in some way, mechanism at present uncertain, can precipitate out in acid urine and cause kidney stones. This might indeed be sensitive to diet, as some foods, notably cranberry juice, can acidify the urine.

[Bungleau]

GODS!!!

Originally posted by Attalus: Actually, I did read the article, and was imressed on how up-front it was that we don't really know what causes osteoporosis. But, acid is produced in the stomach in much, much larger quantites than meat metabolism produces, and pancreatic secretions of a highly alkaline kind neutralize it, and give the intestinal contents a generally alkaline character. Blood that flows from the veins of the intestine, bearing fats, carbohydrates, etc., extracted from food drain directly into the portal vein and thenc into the parechyma of the liver, with no contact with bone possible. By the time it has exited from the liver, bearing that cholesterol and those triglycerides that we all know and love, it flows through the Hepatic Vein and into the inferior vena cava, and thence to the heart, where it is pumped into the lungs, and it's acid;base balance restored. Then, and only then, can it go to the bones. That's the part I have trouble with. And, if you can make fun of articles on NRO, I can make fun of your soy-moo sites. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Every so often, I read something that makes me say, "I know what all those words mean individually, but together, they must mean something special!"

I'm impressed. When I read the article, my take was that they went through a study to attempt to find a link between eating animal proteins and osteo, and surprisingly, their study showed no such link. I questioned some of the testing methods (take three readings, three months apart, and only look at the last three days' of eating habits?), and concluded that everyone must get published in order to get their PhD.

Part of that stems from a college professor I had who let us in on the back-room tactics of the universities... "Here, you grad students go try out this pet theory of mine, write it up, and put my name in front. Then you can have your degrees."

Now, RL may certainly not be like that, and today I'm a little jaded and irritated, but...

And I'm not disagreeing with the science, the points raised, or the thoughts involved. It just seems to me like a first effort, and a first effort that didn't find anything.

[Timber Loftis]

I don't know where they would get off calling the women who ate less protein according to an interview "vegan." I suspect that they targeted vegan participants and simply did not have the sense to explain it in the article.

This bit, though:

"The current model predicts increased bone resorption for people who consume large amounts of animal protein, so it was somewhat surprising that bone resorption was the same for both groups of our volunteers," Van Loan notes. Second, bone formation was significantly less in omnivore women than in vegan women. This happened even though the omnivore women had a higher calcium intake than did the vegan volunteers. (The volunteers did not differ in their intake of other nutrients that affect bone health, such as magnesium.)

Seems fairly factual though. Now, we all know how Maters/PhD "research" happens, and Bungleau is right, but why are we jumping all over this.

Is it that IWF-ers (unlike normal F-ers ) will always doubt anything posted and attack it, or is it that the underlying concept, i.e. that there may be some drawbacks to eating 2 lbs. of meat thrice daily and that you ought balance your diet, offends you? [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img]

Meat used to be a luxury on this planet. It is only in the last half-century or so that it has become a staple of every single meal. Yet, our bodies have changed none. So, is it not fair to investigate possible effects of this dietary transformation?

[Bungleau]

I think it's fair to investigate, and perhaps IWF-ers (and regular F-ers ) do tend to judge things quickly and directly.

My thoughts are that the study sounds like a preliminary study that hasn't uncovered anything specific yet. And I will keep in mind the words of... I think it was Einstein... who said that the most important phrase in discovery is not "Eureka!" but "That's funny..."

They had a model, and they tested the model. The model broke, contrary to their expectations. Sounds like they're ready to go back to re-work the model and take it to the next level. I'd be interested to see what happens then.

One of my family's long-running holiday traditions, left over from those meat-less times, is having a bowl of borscht before the meal. Borscht, which I call garbage-can soup, has a little of eveything, and the origins, I suspect, go back to when meat was a rarity and everyone got to have some for this holiday meal.

The rarity of meat at a meal is definitely reduced in many parts of the world, and there is certainly a lot of it about in those same parts of the world. Don't think I'm up to two pounds per meal yet, but give me bacon for breakfast, salami for lunch, and tenderloin for dinner, and I'll do my best to get there