• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
* * * * - 1 votes

Calcium: Helpful or Dangerous?


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1 MP11

  • Guest
  • 121 posts
  • 0

Posted 21 June 2007 - 03:28 AM


I was wondering if anyone had researched the effects of calcium in relation to cancer. I've found contradictory answers.

In an issue of Men's Health "they" state: "You may be able to lower your prostate-cancer risk by limiting your calcium intake and eating more fruit. Harvard researchers studied 47,000 men and found that those who consumed 2,000 mg of calcium a day were almost twice as likely to develop prostate cancer as those who consumed 1,000 mg (about three glasses of milk)."

Other seraches on google turned up results in favor of calcium by various sources but gave no clear limit. Does anyone know of solid research on calcium and its effects?

Thanks.

#2 health_nutty

  • Guest
  • 2,410 posts
  • 93
  • Location:California

Posted 21 June 2007 - 05:32 AM

Doesn't say much if they don't specify whether the dairy was nonfat or not? It could just indicate that a diet high in milk fat leads to a higher risk of prostate cancer.

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for SUPPLEMENTS (in thread) to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#3 woly

  • Guest, F@H
  • 279 posts
  • 11

Posted 21 June 2007 - 05:58 AM

there was an interesting post on sci.life-extension about this a while ago

http://groups.google...ab94608807a6dd5

#4 narcissistic

  • Guest
  • 110 posts
  • -1

Posted 10 July 2007 - 11:48 AM

I know that some people eat a tablespoon of calcium/magnesium, on an empty stomach, every day because of its high ph. I do agree that its important to maintain a healthy ph (efects hormons among other things) most people are to acid, but this is of course extreme. however it seams to be helpful for people with allergy and skin disorders.

#5 durandal

  • Guest
  • 39 posts
  • 0

Posted 10 July 2007 - 10:47 PM

Man's existence is inextricably linked to the white element. Just watch out for the Helvetica Scenario, though this occurs very rarely.

#6 Brainbox

  • Member
  • 2,860 posts
  • 743
  • Location:Netherlands
  • NO

Posted 10 July 2007 - 10:55 PM

Would the seemingly inconsistent data be (partly) rationalised if you consider sex and in case of female individuals pre / post menopausal status?

#7 krillin

  • Guest
  • 1,516 posts
  • 60
  • Location:USA

Posted 10 July 2007 - 11:27 PM

Doesn't say much if they don't specify whether the dairy was nonfat or not? It could just indicate that a diet high in milk fat leads to a higher risk of prostate cancer.


Most likely it's high calcium lowering 1,25 hydroxy D3 production. It's too dangerous and problematical (really short half life) to take the 1,25, so the best option is to consume just enough calcium to avoid negative calcium balance and take D and K2 to make sure it's absorbed and put to good use.

http://www.ajcn.org/...t/full/74/4/549

Given the high correlation between dairy product and calcium intakes, we cannot exclude the possibility that some other component of dairy foods (eg, dairy fat) accounted for the observed associations. However, skim milk was the dairy food most strongly related to risk, and dairy fat and dairy protein were not significantly associated with risk. Additionally, in the Swedish study and the HPFS, the effect of calcium was independent of total fat and other major nutrients


Support for consuming 600-700 mg/day:

http://www.camgwater...NishimutaMz.pdf

http://www.hsph.harv...ce/calcium.html

#8 mirian

  • Guest
  • 166 posts
  • 0

Posted 23 October 2007 - 08:11 AM

Calcium linked to cardiac side-effects

5:00AM Tuesday September 25, 2007

By Martin Johnston

Large doses of calcium supplements, which just five years ago were thought to lower the risk of heart disease, have now been found in a new study to increase the risk.

Calcium supplements are widely used to prevent bones from weakening. Over the age of 60, half of women and nearly a third of men will suffer a fracture caused by the bone-thinning condition osteoporosis.

The Auckland University study, presented to an American conference, found that 36 of those taking calcium supplements had a heart attack, compared with 22 from the trial's placebo arm.

Some women died from cardiac-related illnesses during the trial, but none of the deaths was thought to have been caused by the calcium supplements.

The 1500 postmenopausal women in the trial were randomly assigned to take the 1g supplement or a placebo pill daily for five years, the Herald on Sunday reported.

Professor Ian Reid told the paper that while the study did not necessarily prove that all calcium supplements caused heart attacks, he was worried by the trend. Smaller studies elsewhere had produced similar results.


People with heart disease developed a build-up of calcium in their heart vessels. Taking extra calcium could speed that up.
He has written to the trial participants, advising those with heart problems or poor kidney function to seek another way of preventing osteoporosis.

"If you are elderly and you have heart disease, you should probably be looking after your bones in other ways than with high calcium intakes."

For others, he suggested reducing the dose to 500mg a day.

In 2002, Professor Reid's group published findings that calcium improved cholesterol balance and he speculated they could therefore reduce the risk of heart disease and stroke.

Doctors interviewed by the Herald emphasised that patients' individual risks of heart disease needed to be weighed against the benefits their bones received from the supplements.

"There are other ways of looking after your bones," said Professor Geoffrey Horne, a Wellington orthopaedic surgeon and formerly a scientific adviser to Osteoporosis New Zealand.

"It's all a matter of balancing risks. If you take some of the pharmacologically active drugs, they too have risks ... Every time you put something in your mouth you are taking a risk."

Heart Foundation medical director Dr Norman Sharpe said it was an important study and people taking calcium supplements should discuss them with their doctor.

"There will be people who are at very high risk of osteoporosis where the treatment is well justified because the benefits will outweigh any risks and there will be those at relatively low risk where calcium supplementation is going to provide little benefit and will still carry this sort of risk."

The principal technical adviser of drugs regulator Medsafe, Dr Stewart Jessamine, said he looked forward to reading the study once it was published.

#9 krillin

  • Guest
  • 1,516 posts
  • 60
  • Location:USA

Posted 07 December 2007 - 02:44 AM

Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Oct;86(4):1054-63.
Calcium requirements: new estimations for men and women by cross-sectional statistical analyses of calcium balance data from metabolic studies.
Hunt CD, Johnson LK.
US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Grand Forks Human Nutrition Research Center, Grand Forks, ND 58202-9034, USA. curtiss.hunt@ars.usda.gov

BACKGROUND: Low intakes of calcium are associated with an increased risk of both osteoporosis and cardiovascular disease. OBJECTIVE: To provide new estimates of the average calcium requirement for men and women, we determined the dietary calcium intake required to maintain neutral calcium balance. DESIGN: Calcium balance data [calcium intake -(fecal calcium + urinary calcium)] were collected from 155 subjects [women: n = 73; weight: 77.1 +/- 18.5 kg; age: 47.0 +/- 18.5 y (range: 20-75 y); men: n = 82; weight: 76.6 +/- 12.5 kg; age: 28.2 +/- 7.7 y (range: 19-64 y)] who participated in 19 feeding studies conducted in a metabolic unit. Balance data from the final 6-12 d of each dietary period (minimum length:18 d) of each study (1-9 observations per subject) were analyzed. Data were excluded if individual intakes of magnesium, copper, iron, phosphorus, or zinc fell below the estimated average requirements or exceeded the 99 th percentile of usual intakes from the 1994 Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals (for iron, above the upper limit). Daily intakes of calcium ranged between 415 and 1740 mg. The relation between intake and output was examined by fitting random coefficient models. Coefficients were included to test for sex and age differences. RESULTS: The models predicted a neutral calcium balance [defined as calcium output (Y) equal to calcium intake ©] at intakes of 741 mg/d [95% prediction interval (PI): 507, 1035; Y = 148.29 + 0.80C], 9.4 mg kg body wt(-1) d(-1) [95% PI: 6.4, 12.9; Y = 1.44 + 0.85C], or 0.28 mg kcal(-1) d(-1) [95% PI: 0.19, 0.38; Y = 0.051 + 0.816C]. Neither age nor sex affected the estimates when calcium intakes were expressed as mg/d or as mg kg body wt(-1) d(-1). CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that the calcium requirement for men and women is lower than previously estimated.

PMID: 17921384

Am J Clin Nutr. 2006 Oct;84(4):843-52.
Magnesium requirements: new estimations for men and women by cross-sectional statistical analyses of metabolic magnesium balance data.
Hunt CD, Johnson LK.
US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Grand Forks Human Nutrition Research Center, Grand Forks, ND 58202-9034, USA. chunt@gfhnrc.ars.usda.gov

BACKGROUND: Current recommendations for magnesium requirements are based on sparse balance data. OBJECTIVE: To provide new estimates of the average magnesium requirement for men and women, we pooled magnesium data from 27 different tightly controlled balance studies conducted at the US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Grand Forks Human Nutrition Research Center, Grand Forks, ND. DESIGN: Magnesium balance data (magnesium intake - [fecal magnesium + urinary magnesium]) (664 data points) were collected from 243 subjects (women: n = 150; weight: 71.6 +/- 16.5 kg; age: 51.3 +/- 17.4 y; men: n = 93, weight: 76.3 +/- 12.5 kg; age: 28.1 +/- 8.1 y). Data from the last 6-14 d of each dietary period (> or =28 d) of each study were analyzed and were excluded if individual intakes of calcium, copper, iron, phosphorus, or zinc fell below respective estimated average requirements (EARs) or exceeded 99th percentiles of usual intakes of those elements (iron: above the upper limit) from the 1994 Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals. Daily intakes of magnesium ranged between 84 and 598 mg. The relation between magnesium intake and magnesium output was investigated by fitting random coefficient models. RESULTS: The models predicted neutral magnesium balance [defined as magnesium output (Y) equal to magnesium intake (M)] at magnesium intakes of 165 mg/d [95% prediction interval (PI): 113, 237 mg/d; Y = 19.8 + 0.880 M], 2.36 mg . kg(-1) . d(-1) (95% PI: 1.58, 3.38 mg . kg(-1) . d(-1); Y = 0.306 + 0.870 M), or 0.075 mg . kcal(-1) . d(-1) (95% PI: 0.05, 0.11 mg . kcal(-1) . d(-1); Y = 0.011 + 0.857 M). Neither age nor sex affected the relation between magnesium intake and output. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest a lower magnesium requirement for healthy men and women than estimated previously.

PMID: 17023712

#10 kurdishfella

  • Guest
  • 2,397 posts
  • -71
  • Location:russia
  • NO

Posted 28 November 2021 - 04:27 AM

Your bones, nerves and blood, body composed of a lot of water, skin etc are a big part on your body so you need a lot of things like calcium, sodium , potassium etc, vitamin D, b12 and iron for blood and so on for them. There are certain foods more helpful for producing new blood cells.  As time went on we dont do the same thing eat the same foods so we have to try explore more and combos.


Edited by kurdishfella, 28 November 2021 - 04:38 AM.


#11 ironfistx

  • Guest
  • 1,172 posts
  • 64
  • Location:Chicago

Posted 30 November 2021 - 12:17 AM

When I take vitamin D3 and eat potatoes, or possibly any nightshades, I get hypercalcemia. This happened to me again a few months ago taking an average of 1300iu D3 per day for 2 months. D3 went from 34 - 43. Serum calcium went to 10.5 - hypercalcemia for someone over 30. Hypercalcemia makes you feel horrible and have bone pain. Nightshades have calcitriol which messes with d3 somehow. Apparently precise people are vulnerable to this.

I've been off D3 and taking k2 (unsure if this helps) for about 7 weeks and starting to feel better in certain regards.

My calcium consumption was not increased during this time.

#12 ironfistx

  • Guest
  • 1,172 posts
  • 64
  • Location:Chicago

Posted 30 November 2021 - 12:21 AM

I mention this because in reports hypercalcemia usually due to D3 occurs solely at levels about 150. Mine was 43. Hypervitaminosis d causing elevated calcium is a thing, but normally not until levels get high. Mine are not. I was eating a bunch of potatoes though.

#13 ironfistx

  • Guest
  • 1,172 posts
  • 64
  • Location:Chicago

Posted 30 November 2021 - 12:23 AM

Furthermore normally doctors will not say you have hypercalcemia at 10.5. This level is too high. People in their 30s and over should not be in the 10s. Source: www.parathyroid.com. I can confirm feeling like absolute crap when levels get into the 10s.

#14 CarlSagan

  • Guest
  • 91 posts
  • 36
  • Location:UK

Posted 24 January 2022 - 05:03 PM

When I take vitamin D3 and eat potatoes, or possibly any nightshades, I get hypercalcemia. This happened to me again a few months ago taking an average of 1300iu D3 per day for 2 months. D3 went from 34 - 43. Serum calcium went to 10.5 - hypercalcemia for someone over 30. Hypercalcemia makes you feel horrible and have bone pain. Nightshades have calcitriol which messes with d3 somehow. Apparently precise people are vulnerable to this.

I've been off D3 and taking k2 (unsure if this helps) for about 7 weeks and starting to feel better in certain regards.

My calcium consumption was not increased during this time.

 

Not 100% sure yet but i suspect this could be a reason for some issues i've been having from d3 too (though my calc intake is on the low side, maybe some sort of malfunctioning balancing after d3 or something). Acutely & worsens with dose: muscle twitching, knee pain (rarely fingers & toes too), electrical heart issues, etc, & all day tiredness (but was around on & off before the d3 also).

 

- Did you also notice muscle twitching during this?

 

- What dose of k2 are you taking?

 

- Have you found something that allows you to take d3 smoothly since? 

 

the only thing i've found that takes the edge off is potassium, but not fully. magnesium did nothing and likely made it worse. k2 might have allowed me to take it without issues early on but might have just been the lack of time taking the d3 before this, so i'm re-trying k2 to see.


Edited by CarlSagan, 24 January 2022 - 05:05 PM.


#15 syr_

  • Guest
  • 500 posts
  • 2
  • Location:Italy
  • NO

Posted 24 January 2022 - 06:43 PM

I think calcium supplementation is usually overdosed and 99% done with very poor forms*, which are not absorbed well and upset the GI. Moreover too much powdered rocks will cause hypercalcemia which is no joke.

First of all, you don't need more than 1,5g, including dietary intake.

Second, all minerals need a BALANCE, in particular calcium needs to balanced with magnesium and boron. Still the typical 2:1 cal-mag ratio is not good for everyone, since the typical western diet is poor of magnesium.

Third, calcium is present in a lot of compounds such as AKG, Ester-C, often without being declared in the label.

 

*the only good forms are plant-based, i.e. from algae.


  • Needs references x 1

#16 johnhemming

  • Member
  • 306 posts
  • 62
  • Location:Birmingham, UK

Posted 24 January 2022 - 07:22 PM

α-Ketoglutaric acid (2-oxoglutaric acid) is C5 H6 O5 (ie no Calcium).  However, it is often supplemented as Calcium AKG (the Calcium salt) which obviously has Calcium.  I am, however, personally unsure of the merits of Calcium supplementation specifically if you eat dairy products.

 

If something does not say it is CaAKG it really should not have calcium in it.



#17 syr_

  • Guest
  • 500 posts
  • 2
  • Location:Italy
  • NO

Posted 24 January 2022 - 09:41 PM

Not 100% sure yet but i suspect this could be a reason for some issues i've been having from d3 too (though my calc intake is on the low side, maybe some sort of malfunctioning balancing after d3 or something). Acutely & worsens with dose: muscle twitching, knee pain (rarely fingers & toes too), electrical heart issues, etc, & all day tiredness (but was around on & off before the d3 also).

 

I think you should see a doctor because your symptoms seems too much for just an unbalance of mineral supplementation. Magnesium alone (unless u are taking oxide with is very poorly absorbed) should have helped.



#18 ironfistx

  • Guest
  • 1,172 posts
  • 64
  • Location:Chicago

Posted 25 January 2022 - 02:34 AM

Not 100% sure yet but i suspect this could be a reason for some issues i've been having from d3 too (though my calc intake is on the low side, maybe some sort of malfunctioning balancing after d3 or something). Acutely & worsens with dose: muscle twitching, knee pain (rarely fingers & toes too), electrical heart issues, etc, & all day tiredness (but was around on & off before the d3 also).

- Did you also notice muscle twitching during this?

- What dose of k2 are you taking?

- Have you found something that allows you to take d3 smoothly since?

the only thing i've found that takes the edge off is potassium, but not fully. magnesium did nothing and likely made it worse. k2 might have allowed me to take it without issues early on but might have just been the lack of time taking the d3 before this, so i'm re-trying k2 to see.

Still looking. Most of my hypercalcemia symptoms are gone but I've got some other concerning stuff now, perhaps related.

Edited by ironfistx, 25 January 2022 - 02:35 AM.


#19 CarlSagan

  • Guest
  • 91 posts
  • 36
  • Location:UK

Posted 26 January 2022 - 02:08 PM

might (?) be a problem with too low calcium intakes paradoxically increasing serum levels of calcium too much through parathyroid hormone pulling it from bones - so in this case more calcium could be helpful if intakes have been obviously low, while taking k2 mk7 with it to carboxylate matrix gla protein which helps to inhibit calcium where it shouldn't be. 

 

& if supplementing then calcium hydroxyapatite looks to be the best form - as it increases serum calcium the least after ingestion while still giving similar levels of bone improvements. it's the natural form found in bone and probably a main source hunter gathers would get. 

https://pubmed.ncbi....h.gov/25274192/

 

 


Edited by CarlSagan, 26 January 2022 - 02:27 PM.

  • Good Point x 1

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for SUPPLEMENTS (in thread) to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#20 syr_

  • Guest
  • 500 posts
  • 2
  • Location:Italy
  • NO

Posted 26 January 2022 - 05:45 PM

& if supplementing then calcium hydroxyapatite looks to be the best form - as it increases serum calcium the least after ingestion while still giving similar levels of bone improvements. it's the natural form found in bone and probably a main source hunter gathers would get. 

https://pubmed.ncbi....h.gov/25274192/

Nope, even if it's the form of which our bones are made, it's not what we assume with food. It is marginally better than the other forms tested in that study, but it's nowhere as good as eating kelp, algae or milk.

Besides, I took it in the past and it's quite disgusting :)






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users