Here is a new calcium and Vitamin D study that say these supplements have little effect on bone density. Previous studies show benefit. Who are we to believe? Usually we just have to wait a few months and there will be a new study contradicting this one.
I have 3 questions about the study that cause me to question the results:
1. They used calcium carbonate as the source of calcium. Calcium carbonate is a terrible form of calcium. It is only absorbed between 23% and 40% depending on the dose. It is chalk. It is limestone. Carbonate requires acid to be absorbed. Many people don't have enough acid. Plus calcium carbonate is an antacid. So it prevents most things from being digested and absorbed! Come on guys, this is basic stuff! Why not do the study using a technically superior form like DiCalcium Malate like we use for our Jigsaw Health Calcium.
2. They don't even identify the form of Vitamin D. If they did not use D3, the active and best form of vitamin D, then they might as well have not done the study. Most vitamin D is worthless. We use D3 in Jigsaw's calcium supplement along with boron, which greatly increases the absorption of calcium.
3. Often the real issue for bone density is a lack of magnesium, NOT a lack of calcium. Magnesium has enormous effects on the body including the regulation of calcium. Also including the prevention of kidney stones, which the study does mention. They found the more calcium carbonate (basically rock) they gave, the more kidney stones people got. Well duh! Most people would be better off taking more magnesium and only a little calcium. Turns out, most Americans are deficient in magnesium, which is found in nuts and very green, leafy vegetables. (How many Americans eat enough green, leafy veggies? I don't ever eat enough, and I know the stuff is good for me!)
I find it disappointing when the media and conventional medicine latches onto studies like these and announce in big bold print, "Calcium ineffective", "Vitamin E worthless", "You-name-it-natural-substance-that-has-been-around-since-the-beginning-of-time is junk", etc. It's confusing to the public. It's been confusing to me. I've had to learn the hard way over the last 20 years that to replenish nutrient deficiencies caused by a chronically poor diet comprised of "thin" ( non- nutrient dense) foods, you can't just take any old calcium, vitamin D, magnesium, etc. You must learn to find the right form of these nutrients.
Usually, the raw material suppliers that have the best stuff actually spend the money to do their own clinical trials showing efficiacy. People like National Enzyme Company and Albion Minerals are two such examples that we use for this very reason.
Unfortunately for the consumer, finding the good stuff is really an arduous task since there are so many claims of efficiacy to sort through to pick the wheat from the chaff. How do I know this? Because I've spent the last 20 years doing that very thing for myself.
UPDATE: In a related note, Mark Schauss gives a quick list of what's wrong with another study recently published in NEJM about Glucosamine.
Here is a new calcium and Vitamin D study that say these supplements have little effect on bone density. Previous studies show benefit. Who are we to believe? Usually we just have to wait a few months and there will be a new study contradicting this one.
I have 3 questions about the study that cause me to question the results:
1. They used calcium carbonate as the source of calcium. Calcium carbonate is a terrible form of calcium. It is only absorbed between 23% and 40% depending on the dose. It is chalk. It is limestone. Carbonate requires acid to be absorbed. Many people don't have enough acid. Plus calcium carbonate is an antacid. So it prevents most things from being digested and absorbed! Come on guys, this is basic stuff! Why not do the study using a technically superior form like DiCalcium Malate like we use for our Jigsaw Health Calcium.
2. They don't even identify the form of Vitamin D. If they did not use D3, the active and best form of vitamin D, then they might as well have not done the study. Most vitamin D is worthless. We use D3 in Jigsaw's calcium supplement along with boron, which greatly increases the absorption of calcium.
3. Often the real issue for bone density is a lack of magnesium, NOT a lack of calcium. Magnesium has enormous effects on the body including the regulation of calcium. Also including the prevention of kidney stones, which the study does mention. They found the more calcium carbonate (basically rock) they gave, the more kidney stones people got. Well duh! Most people would be better off taking more magnesium and only a little calcium. Turns out, most Americans are deficient in magnesium, which is found in nuts and very green, leafy vegetables. (How many Americans eat enough green, leafy veggies? I don't ever eat enough, and I know the stuff is good for me!)
I find it disappointing when the media and conventional medicine latches onto studies like these and announce in big bold print, "Calcium ineffective", "Vitamin E worthless", "You-name-it-natural-substance-that-has-been-around-since-the-beginning-of-time is junk", etc. It's confusing to the public. It's been confusing to me. I've had to learn the hard way over the last 20 years that to replenish nutrient deficiencies caused by a chronically poor diet comprised of "thin" ( non- nutrient dense) foods, you can't just take any old calcium, vitamin D, magnesium, etc. You must learn to find the right form of these nutrients.
Usually, the raw material suppliers that have the best stuff actually spend the money to do their own clinical trials showing efficiacy. People like National Enzyme Company and Albion Minerals are two such examples that we use for this very reason.
Unfortunately for the consumer, finding the good stuff is really an arduous task since there are so many claims of efficiacy to sort through to pick the wheat from the chaff. How do I know this? Because I've spent the last 20 years doing that very thing for myself.
UPDATE: In a related note, Mark Schauss gives a quick list of what's wrong with another study recently published in NEJM about Glucosamine.