9

votes

How to get enough paleo calcium?

Answered on September 12, 2014
Created August 05, 2010 at 6:06 AM

Tracking my nutrient intake, I have noticed that I am consistantly low on my daily calcium intake. According to the RDA, I should be getting 1000mg per day. I am finding that hard to do on a consistant basis. Many of the foods high in calcium are not paleo, especially if you limit or eliminate diary. Many of the other foods supposedly 'high' in calcium only have about 10% of the RDA which means I would have to eat 10 servings per day. I have not been able to find info on how much calcium is produced by cooking bones or eating small fish bones (such as in canned salmon), but I am unlikely to do that every day anyway. HOwever, if I found that the bone boiling resulted in very high levels of calcium, at least my overall calcium intake on bone eating days might help counterbalance lower intake days. So how are other paleo eaters managing to stuff down enough calcium to meet the RDA? I'd prefer not to supplement if reasonably possible. I prefer to eat whole foods intead of pills.

Ad369bbf19109804bbe6609f023285b1

(74)

on March 15, 2012
at 02:52 PM

Thanks, great resource!

B0fe7b5a9a197cd293978150cbd9055f

(8938)

on February 23, 2012
at 08:39 AM

Unfortunately, bone meal is known to be a bad source of calcium. A good source of calcium on paleo is : some veggies, egg shells, spring water, bone broth (?), and I believe chia seeds and garden cress have some too. Garden cress tastes and smells really good.

B0fe7b5a9a197cd293978150cbd9055f

(8938)

on February 23, 2012
at 08:38 AM

I found a water with more than 400mg of water. It's also spring water, also from France, very close to Vittel : Contrexeville. Apparently my grandmother drank it her whole life (she's in her nineties now and her mental is great). I find calcium intake more and more important, and don't believe that an adequate vitamin D intake is enough.

B0fe7b5a9a197cd293978150cbd9055f

(8938)

on May 25, 2011
at 07:55 PM

Vittel from France, I like it a lot, and use it to soak nuts too.

742ff8ba4ff55e84593ede14ac1c3cab

(3536)

on May 24, 2011
at 02:27 PM

What kind of water do you drink?

84666a86108dee8d11cbbc85b6382083

(2399)

on August 19, 2010
at 07:25 AM

Also random quote from Stephan @ WHS : Calcium is not something you have to worry about on a whole foods diet, even with no dairy involved. Unless it's high in whole grains, soy and beans, in which case the phytic acid may interfere with calcium absorption.

62ed65f3596aa2f62fa1d58a0c09f8c3

(20807)

on August 08, 2010
at 04:35 AM

Look at how MUCH is in veggies. The answer is not much. Bone is the only source I see that has tons of calcium and was likely eaten in the paleo. In fact, some researchers of ancient times think we at lots of bones back then via small animal consumption. THis would have been a very natural paleo calcium source.

8287c6ddae0d78eae0a09fdd5999617c

(2581)

on August 07, 2010
at 05:47 AM

But calcium is found in vegetables too. So I don't see the issue with calcium.

62ed65f3596aa2f62fa1d58a0c09f8c3

(20807)

on August 07, 2010
at 04:21 AM

Interesting. I responded below as it was way too long for comments.

62ed65f3596aa2f62fa1d58a0c09f8c3

(20807)

on August 06, 2010
at 04:05 PM

Good point! In many asian cultures, the bones are wacked in pieces with a big cleaver instead of separating carefully at the joints. Then the ragged chunks are cooked in a broth. This would probably better expose the marrow and help cook the nutrients out of the bones. I always wondered why the asians chopped the bones this way thus making all those bone shards, but it actually makes total sense when thinking about the nutrients it might unleash.

84666a86108dee8d11cbbc85b6382083

(2399)

on August 06, 2010
at 07:09 AM

offca: My bad. Indeed you wrote "levels" :) I'll try to scout around for the study.

62ed65f3596aa2f62fa1d58a0c09f8c3

(20807)

on August 06, 2010
at 03:42 AM

Yeah, exactly. Of course, D is a tricky one cuz you may not need to really eat any if you get enough UVB.

62ed65f3596aa2f62fa1d58a0c09f8c3

(20807)

on August 06, 2010
at 03:36 AM

The MI was only found in those without coadministered vit D. The study people were probably typical sun phobic vit D deficient population to start with. What that study say is that people need to have good levels of D if they are going to have higher levels of C. It does not mean C is bad, it means C is bad if D is low. BIG DIFFERENCE! Besides, there are other ways to die than just MI. What about overall mortality? C may help with other things or just quality of life in general. Personally, I think the safe bet is to keep good levels of both calcium AND D (plus all the others).

62ed65f3596aa2f62fa1d58a0c09f8c3

(20807)

on August 06, 2010
at 03:29 AM

THank you Ikco, yes, overnight I began thinking about bones and bone consumption. And there you have posted a nice link about the same thing. Bone calcium is well absorbed it seems. Interesting about the vit D. I think that means we need to be extra careful to get enough D. I have always been suspicious that 15 minutes of sun is all that is needed as claim the 'experts.' Paleos probably spent a lot more time in the sun than that!

62ed65f3596aa2f62fa1d58a0c09f8c3

(20807)

on August 06, 2010
at 03:26 AM

Paleoseb, yes exactly what my research turned up. THe biggest acidifier of the blood is exercise, not food. And the body is well equiped to deal with it and keep the PH well controlled. It's only when people get very sick that the body loses control of basic balancing mechanisms for things like blood PH. THe biggest effect food might have on the body is in the intestinal tract and even then there are good and bad bacteria that are both acid and base loving. I was not able to find any science to support the acid/base theory.

62ed65f3596aa2f62fa1d58a0c09f8c3

(20807)

on August 06, 2010
at 03:22 AM

Any evidence that paleo eaters need way less calcium? Is there any science behind it? SUre it sounds logical, but historically, many logical sounding assumptions and theories have also been totally wrong. There is much we don't yet know.

62ed65f3596aa2f62fa1d58a0c09f8c3

(20807)

on August 06, 2010
at 03:17 AM

Do you have some kind of evidence to this effect, ie that much less than the RDA is sufficient? I have no problem with the basic concept but I would like to see some evidence/science behind it before I decide it's a good idea to get much less than the RDA of calcium on a regular basis.

62ed65f3596aa2f62fa1d58a0c09f8c3

(20807)

on August 06, 2010
at 03:15 AM

The question is for paleo eating. Paleos often do not consume a lot of diary. You would need to be drinking many glasses of milk per day to get the calcium RDA. Few of us paleos guzzle that kind of milk or eat lots of cheese all day. Besides, I already know how to get plenty of vitamin D so I am not asking that question.

A68f24168bc0de414a038037e287b581

(4896)

on August 06, 2010
at 03:07 AM

I understood they were talking about blood levels of calcium, not daily consumption. But I can't track down an exact study that would prove it, sorry.

9bc6f3df8db981f67ea1465411958c8d

(3690)

on August 06, 2010
at 03:01 AM

...to lower the acid. Also, while the blood is slightly alkaline, a lot of other parts of the body have to be acidic to thrive. Acid environments protect us from pathogens so areas susceptible to them have to be acidic: skin, gut, stomach, vagina, sinuses...

9bc6f3df8db981f67ea1465411958c8d

(3690)

on August 06, 2010
at 03:00 AM

...to lower the acid. Also, while the blood is slightly alkaline, a lot of other parts of the body have to be acidic to thrive. Acid environments protect us from pathogens so areas susceptible to them have to bad acidic: skin, gut, stomach, gut, vagina, sinuses...

9bc6f3df8db981f67ea1465411958c8d

(3690)

on August 06, 2010
at 02:58 AM

The whole acid/base balance, to me, is a bunch of bologna. We take it for a fact, but it comes from people trying to scare us from eating too much animal products. As far as I know, plain indians and inuits had no acid/base balance problems on an all meat and fat diet. It is very dangerous, even fatal to have an over alkaline or over acidic blood and for this reason our bodies have mechanisms in place to keep us in a very narrow range. For example, when your blood becomes too acidic, you breathe more to reduce acid with oxygen. When you exercise and build lactic acid, you breathe heavier

Ab6d5fded95559985919961c62b1847d

(434)

on August 05, 2010
at 08:56 PM

Good point about the RDAs being lower rather than higher. Look at how much vitamin D they recommend, only like 400 IU. Ridiculous.

84666a86108dee8d11cbbc85b6382083

(2399)

on August 05, 2010
at 04:28 PM

Also it would interesting to see how calcium supplements work in those who supplement with itamin D, since I presume that quite a lot of paleo population does.

84666a86108dee8d11cbbc85b6382083

(2399)

on August 05, 2010
at 04:24 PM

240mg (Pacific)- 380mg (Atlantic) per 100g. Indeed. I can't seem to find any data that would support very low levels of Okinawa inhabitants. For instance one study (Insufficient calcium and iron intakes among general female population in Japan) reports 600 mg/day and another 500 mg a day (1998 Okinawa Prefecture Health and Nutrition Survey -Secondary source), while total daily consumption of calcium for the total U.S. population is 946 mg (What we eat in America, NHANES 2007-2008) or was 737 mg (USDA 1987–88 Nationwide Food Consumption - Secondary source)

84666a86108dee8d11cbbc85b6382083

(2399)

on August 05, 2010
at 03:52 PM

Which chemical composition of calcium is suppose to be good and which bad ?

  • 62ed65f3596aa2f62fa1d58a0c09f8c3

    asked by

    (20807)
  • Views
    10.9K
  • Last Activity
    1523D AGO
Frontpage book

Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!

16 Answers

best answer

3
84666a86108dee8d11cbbc85b6382083

(2399)

on August 05, 2010
at 07:12 AM

Foods highest in Calcium @ Nutrition Data

Spices, cheese, milk and all sorts of dried stuff make most of the first 206 foods.

The first meat product is "Beef, variety meats and by-products, mechanically separated beef, raw" with 485mg of calcium per 100g.

I can't seem to find any food that would be viable (meaning that you don't have to eat more than a pound of it) for the whole RDA. Fish mostly has 200 - 250 mg, almonds 250 mg, ...

All I can think of are supplements or diary.

Research: Calcium from salmon and cod bone is well absorbed in young healthy men: a double-blinded randomised crossover design

Table 2: Proximal, mineral and elemental composition of different Ca sources.

62ed65f3596aa2f62fa1d58a0c09f8c3

(20807)

on August 06, 2010
at 03:29 AM

THank you Ikco, yes, overnight I began thinking about bones and bone consumption. And there you have posted a nice link about the same thing. Bone calcium is well absorbed it seems. Interesting about the vit D. I think that means we need to be extra careful to get enough D. I have always been suspicious that 15 minutes of sun is all that is needed as claim the 'experts.' Paleos probably spent a lot more time in the sun than that!

84666a86108dee8d11cbbc85b6382083

(2399)

on August 19, 2010
at 07:25 AM

Also random quote from Stephan @ WHS : Calcium is not something you have to worry about on a whole foods diet, even with no dairy involved. Unless it's high in whole grains, soy and beans, in which case the phytic acid may interfere with calcium absorption.

7
0e4e5882872d6a7c472ea51aec457e66

(1994)

on August 05, 2010
at 12:01 PM

As long as you don't eat grains or soy, which contain phytin acid, you must not worry about your calcium intake. Meats, fish, eggs and leafy greens should provide enough minerals...

The recomendet 1000 mg are only neccesary, when the phytin acid binds the calcium in your guts.

All hunter-gatherer had strong bones and teeth without any suplementation.

But drinking bone broth is an exelent idea anyway. In my family feeding bone broth to litte children has a long tradition and is said to make strong bone.

62ed65f3596aa2f62fa1d58a0c09f8c3

(20807)

on August 06, 2010
at 03:22 AM

Any evidence that paleo eaters need way less calcium? Is there any science behind it? SUre it sounds logical, but historically, many logical sounding assumptions and theories have also been totally wrong. There is much we don't yet know.

5
95f407502f92a7bc460e8f83652341de

on August 05, 2010
at 02:06 PM

Throw the RDA out the window! Have any gov't recommendations led you to a healthier diet thus far?

Use bone broth in other meals as the cooking liquid, etc. cook a little down w/spices and use it as gravy. Dairy has, and always will be, paleo or not, a source of BAD, hard to digest, calcium. Dietary misconception #1. Animal flesh, bone broth, plenty of fats for absorption/digestion, and green leafy vegs will get you ALL that you need and more. Not to mention balancing out that much focused on calcium w/the full spectrum of vitamins, minerals, and trace minerals REALLY needed for health and strength.

If you are worried ab/mineral intake, also do herbal infusions. Nettle, red clover, and oatstraw are incredibly mineral rich and easy to digest. Nettles can also be cooked like greens if you get them fresh, and red clover makes a yummy salad addition.
These are FOOD, not supplements.

84666a86108dee8d11cbbc85b6382083

(2399)

on August 05, 2010
at 03:52 PM

Which chemical composition of calcium is suppose to be good and which bad ?

5
A68f24168bc0de414a038037e287b581

on August 05, 2010
at 01:13 PM

Recently a friend sent me the following link with a study: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/341/jul29_1/c3691

"Conclusions Calcium supplements (without coadministered vitamin D) are associated with an increased risk of myocardial infarction. As calcium supplements are widely used these modest increases in risk of cardiovascular disease might translate into a large burden of disease in the population. A reassessment of the role of calcium supplements in the management of osteoporosis is warranted."

Which means we should definitely stay away from calcium supplements.

a lot of micro-elements and vitamins work only if combined with others or in particular environment. Also to consider - it might be that we do not need to take any more calcium, based on w.price: "Not only is there no nutritional benefit from refined sugar, consumption of it causes a net loss in the body's essential minerals. To process sugar the body must use calcium. If there is none available in the diet, the body's cells will take it from your teeth and bones. Cavities do not appear in the teeth merely because sugar comes into contact with them. They occur because your body, in order to digest refined sugar, must borrow calcium from your teeth and bones whenever your calcium intake is lower than what is required to process the sugar. Deficiency is generally our condition. We consume so much refined sugar per person on average that it would be virtually impossible to ingest enough calcium to make up the difference. Rates of osteoporosis and dental problems in the U.S. and elsewhere tend to confirm this." For example people in Okinawa, known for their long lives and virtually no osteoporosis or breast cancer have 10x lower levels of calcium than Americans. their diet has limited grains (other than rice), almost no sugar, and no dairy whatsoever.

Which means, that as long as we stay on paleo way of eating, we do not need the huge amount of calcium that are suggested for people who eat SAD. We use all we eat, we don't lose it.

btw - sardines are very rich in calcium.

84666a86108dee8d11cbbc85b6382083

(2399)

on August 06, 2010
at 07:09 AM

offca: My bad. Indeed you wrote "levels" :) I'll try to scout around for the study.

62ed65f3596aa2f62fa1d58a0c09f8c3

(20807)

on August 06, 2010
at 03:36 AM

The MI was only found in those without coadministered vit D. The study people were probably typical sun phobic vit D deficient population to start with. What that study say is that people need to have good levels of D if they are going to have higher levels of C. It does not mean C is bad, it means C is bad if D is low. BIG DIFFERENCE! Besides, there are other ways to die than just MI. What about overall mortality? C may help with other things or just quality of life in general. Personally, I think the safe bet is to keep good levels of both calcium AND D (plus all the others).

A68f24168bc0de414a038037e287b581

(4896)

on August 06, 2010
at 03:07 AM

I understood they were talking about blood levels of calcium, not daily consumption. But I can't track down an exact study that would prove it, sorry.

84666a86108dee8d11cbbc85b6382083

(2399)

on August 05, 2010
at 04:24 PM

240mg (Pacific)- 380mg (Atlantic) per 100g. Indeed. I can't seem to find any data that would support very low levels of Okinawa inhabitants. For instance one study (Insufficient calcium and iron intakes among general female population in Japan) reports 600 mg/day and another 500 mg a day (1998 Okinawa Prefecture Health and Nutrition Survey -Secondary source), while total daily consumption of calcium for the total U.S. population is 946 mg (What we eat in America, NHANES 2007-2008) or was 737 mg (USDA 1987–88 Nationwide Food Consumption - Secondary source)

84666a86108dee8d11cbbc85b6382083

(2399)

on August 05, 2010
at 04:28 PM

Also it would interesting to see how calcium supplements work in those who supplement with itamin D, since I presume that quite a lot of paleo population does.

3
47a42b6be94caf700fce9509e38bb6a4

(9647)

on August 06, 2010
at 07:41 PM

Here's something else for you to chew on, Eva. Sort of in line with Andrew's and Kikilula's answers, and also addresses Offca's answer and the discussion therein:

http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2010/06/increased-blood-calcium-and-vitamin-d.html

From Dr. Davis's blog. The thought is that if you have nice high vitamin D levels then calcium supplementation can actually be harmful.

62ed65f3596aa2f62fa1d58a0c09f8c3

(20807)

on August 07, 2010
at 04:21 AM

Interesting. I responded below as it was way too long for comments.

2
77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on August 06, 2010
at 02:48 PM

in the traditional non-dairy chinese diet, bone soups are consumed daily. i have it about 3 times a week. i also take a calcium supplement.

62ed65f3596aa2f62fa1d58a0c09f8c3

(20807)

on August 06, 2010
at 04:05 PM

Good point! In many asian cultures, the bones are wacked in pieces with a big cleaver instead of separating carefully at the joints. Then the ragged chunks are cooked in a broth. This would probably better expose the marrow and help cook the nutrients out of the bones. I always wondered why the asians chopped the bones this way thus making all those bone shards, but it actually makes total sense when thinking about the nutrients it might unleash.

2
Ab6d5fded95559985919961c62b1847d

(434)

on August 05, 2010
at 08:55 PM

I second the suggestion to drink bone broths if you're worried about calcium and other minerals. Even if you're already getting enough calcium, bone broths are beneficial in a lot of other ways. This post from Mark's Daily Apple sums it all up pretty nicely.

2
62ed65f3596aa2f62fa1d58a0c09f8c3

(20807)

on August 05, 2010
at 03:46 PM

WHile I agree that the RDA can't always be trusted, on the flip side, RDAs are often low, not high. And while I agree that there is certainly a chance that we don't need as much calcium as the RDA, I'd like to see some scientific evidence before I make such an assumption. I have often heard the vegans saying they don't need to meet all the RDAs because they are eating healthy and don't need as much. But if I am not going to take that excuse from them without evidence, then I think I need to hold myself to the same standards. Besides, I easily meet most of the RDAs. Calcium is the main one that seems tricky.

Also, paleo man may well have processed lots of bones and consumed parts of them. Evidence suggests bones of food animals were broken open for marrow. Perhaps some of the bone may also have been eaten? PLus of course, bones were likely boiled often. I see that 4 bone meal tablets would almost meet the calcium RDA (taken from here http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_g2603/is_0002/ai_2603000218/:

"Bonemeal tablets are available from health food stores. A typical dose of four tablets per day would commonly contain the following nutrients:

calcium: 880 mg

phosphorus: 400 mg

iron: 1.8 mg

natural vitamin A : 4,000 units

natural vitamin D: 400 units

red bone marrow: 15 mg"

I am not sure how big these bone meal tablets are so dosage will need to be determined. I can check some tablets at the health food store for an idea. The website also says low quality sources might be high in lead. It occurs to me, maybe I could pressure cook some healthy grass fed bones and then crush them up as a more natural supplement. Then I would know exactly what was in the supplement. The dog and the cat might do well with a bit of bone as well. Maybe there is a very good reason why dogs love to chew on bones other than just for fun! Cats tend to consume entire mice so they would not need to chew as they would be ingesting directly. What did humans do? Too bad we can't go back in time and spy on them!

[Edited to add: Plus look, a nice little dose of natural vitamin D as well to help supplement my sun bathing!]

-Eva

Ab6d5fded95559985919961c62b1847d

(434)

on August 05, 2010
at 08:56 PM

Good point about the RDAs being lower rather than higher. Look at how much vitamin D they recommend, only like 400 IU. Ridiculous.

62ed65f3596aa2f62fa1d58a0c09f8c3

(20807)

on August 06, 2010
at 03:42 AM

Yeah, exactly. Of course, D is a tricky one cuz you may not need to really eat any if you get enough UVB.

1
B0fe7b5a9a197cd293978150cbd9055f

(8938)

on May 24, 2011
at 11:59 AM

I find it very strange nobody mentions water here. My source water contains 200mg of calcium for every liter, I drink 3 liters, that's already 60% of your DRA (it also contains 46mg of magnesium, which comes in handy).

742ff8ba4ff55e84593ede14ac1c3cab

(3536)

on May 24, 2011
at 02:27 PM

What kind of water do you drink?

B0fe7b5a9a197cd293978150cbd9055f

(8938)

on May 25, 2011
at 07:55 PM

Vittel from France, I like it a lot, and use it to soak nuts too.

B0fe7b5a9a197cd293978150cbd9055f

(8938)

on February 23, 2012
at 08:38 AM

I found a water with more than 400mg of water. It's also spring water, also from France, very close to Vittel : Contrexeville. Apparently my grandmother drank it her whole life (she's in her nineties now and her mental is great). I find calcium intake more and more important, and don't believe that an adequate vitamin D intake is enough.

1
B69e874333893f59d43567caacc455ab

on December 21, 2010
at 11:51 PM

Ad369bbf19109804bbe6609f023285b1

(74)

on March 15, 2012
at 02:52 PM

Thanks, great resource!

1
4e184df9c1ed38f61febc5d6cf031921

(5005)

on August 05, 2010
at 07:29 AM

Yes, I have noticed this too - calcium, magnesium and potassium are hard to get enough of. I can't help feeling that if the vitamin D levels are kept up and the acid alkali balance is kept not severely acid (lots of veg and fruit) the need for calcium is probably reduced. Don't forget, the RDA's are designed for people eating the CW "SAD" diet which must be massively biased towards acid forming foods.

9bc6f3df8db981f67ea1465411958c8d

(3690)

on August 06, 2010
at 03:00 AM

...to lower the acid. Also, while the blood is slightly alkaline, a lot of other parts of the body have to be acidic to thrive. Acid environments protect us from pathogens so areas susceptible to them have to bad acidic: skin, gut, stomach, gut, vagina, sinuses...

9bc6f3df8db981f67ea1465411958c8d

(3690)

on August 06, 2010
at 02:58 AM

The whole acid/base balance, to me, is a bunch of bologna. We take it for a fact, but it comes from people trying to scare us from eating too much animal products. As far as I know, plain indians and inuits had no acid/base balance problems on an all meat and fat diet. It is very dangerous, even fatal to have an over alkaline or over acidic blood and for this reason our bodies have mechanisms in place to keep us in a very narrow range. For example, when your blood becomes too acidic, you breathe more to reduce acid with oxygen. When you exercise and build lactic acid, you breathe heavier

62ed65f3596aa2f62fa1d58a0c09f8c3

(20807)

on August 06, 2010
at 03:26 AM

Paleoseb, yes exactly what my research turned up. THe biggest acidifier of the blood is exercise, not food. And the body is well equiped to deal with it and keep the PH well controlled. It's only when people get very sick that the body loses control of basic balancing mechanisms for things like blood PH. THe biggest effect food might have on the body is in the intestinal tract and even then there are good and bad bacteria that are both acid and base loving. I was not able to find any science to support the acid/base theory.

9bc6f3df8db981f67ea1465411958c8d

(3690)

on August 06, 2010
at 03:01 AM

...to lower the acid. Also, while the blood is slightly alkaline, a lot of other parts of the body have to be acidic to thrive. Acid environments protect us from pathogens so areas susceptible to them have to be acidic: skin, gut, stomach, vagina, sinuses...

0
9f33e25a50ffba3dc1e49fba93fddfce

(-2)

on June 28, 2013
at 01:43 PM

great original post/question - shines a light on a bigger nutrition issue overall:

below is a very good, non-commercial, research article on calcium and absorption. http://www.uswellnessmeats.com/Calcium_Myth_and_Facts.pdf

some KEY POINTS:

1) More is NOT Better: "rock calcium" added to supplements can cause more harm than good.
2) Trace minerals are important to calcium absorption, especially magnesium at a 50% level of the calcium.

Fish Protein Powder (made from whole fish like achovy) is a great way: a) to get a high ratio of Mg to Ca (about 1:1) b) and goes in line with the link from the original post about eating fish bones since the Ca in the fish is higher level of "organic calcium" (not Ca from ground up rocks that you find in vitamin pills).

While Red Meat is GOOD, the ratio of Sulfur containing amino acids is higher than fish - think of fish as a "cleaner amino acid profile".

0
Eafee106d73d49bdaec8cb3dae41d514

on December 21, 2010
at 09:42 PM

I get it from a combination of whole fish (sardines, dried anchovies, herring) that still have the bones and dairy... I don't think it's a huge concern of mine, but if you're worried I'd go with those.

0
62ed65f3596aa2f62fa1d58a0c09f8c3

(20807)

on August 07, 2010
at 04:20 AM

WCCPaul, this is too long for a comment but in regard to your post, no way would I supplement with 1200 mg as they did in the study when 1000mg is my RDA and I am already getting about 500mg via food. The whole point of supplements is to get what you lack, not to tank up on vitamin sups you probably don't need. I think a lot of people out there are just taking vitamins and supplements without even considering what they are already getting via diet. It does not surprise me that this may have adverse side effects. IF (big if there), I decide to supplement, perhaps with bone, I would only consider taking about 400-500 mg to make up the difference that my diet is lacking. That is less than half of what was supplemented in the study and those people in the study may have been getting a lot more calcium in their regular diet than what I am getting. The dosage makes the poison. Too much can be bad but so can too little. I appreciate everyone's concern about me overdosing by taking sups, but I think we have to look at the big picture when looking at these studies. Just because a big dose of calcium was too much for some people does not mean a small dose of calcium is bad for someone who isn't eating much calcium.

Besides, I am actually not sure what my D levels are. I don't supplement D either. I just go out in the sun daily and I live in a nice sunny location. My D levels may not be up as high as those in that study though. And of course, we don't really know what the best D levels are. That is why I like the sun. If my body feels it no longer wants any more D, then it has the option of not producing any more if the D comes from the sun. But if I supplement D heavily, then my body has not choice but to accept it because I would by bypassing the regulatory pathway.

Evidence suggests D levels help regulate calcium uptake and also that calcium levels help regulate the number of D receptor sites. I suspect a lot of stuff is self regulating if taken naturally. THat's why I prefer to get my D naturally and why I don't like the idea of supplementing. I suspect that the body can self regulate many things if the things are taken in naturally, just as the body does with D from the sun. Also, seems with calcium, there are many factors that might contribute to hypercalcemia, including probs with thyroid or parathyroid as well as taking thyroid hormones. THe fact that only 'some' of those in the study got hypercalcemia begs the question, why some and not others? Were they already getting a lot of calcium in their diet before the sups or ?

0
822f13c3f70b668fc81ba0cb636a2b4d

on August 06, 2010
at 01:02 AM

To put simply what others have already said; you'll get plenty of Calcium from eating green leafy vegetables (especially brocolli). Additionally, the grains (phytenyou used to eat before paleo were inhibiting your body's ability to process the Calcium from much of the dairy intake in the first place (ex. milk and cereal?).

62ed65f3596aa2f62fa1d58a0c09f8c3

(20807)

on August 06, 2010
at 03:17 AM

Do you have some kind of evidence to this effect, ie that much less than the RDA is sufficient? I have no problem with the basic concept but I would like to see some evidence/science behind it before I decide it's a good idea to get much less than the RDA of calcium on a regular basis.

0
8287c6ddae0d78eae0a09fdd5999617c

(2581)

on August 05, 2010
at 11:07 PM

Vitamin D is just as important, if not more important. the problem is not calcium intake, Americans already get a lot of that from dairy. The problem is calcium loss. Vitamin D prevents calcium from being excreted in the urine.

8287c6ddae0d78eae0a09fdd5999617c

(2581)

on August 07, 2010
at 05:47 AM

But calcium is found in vegetables too. So I don't see the issue with calcium.

62ed65f3596aa2f62fa1d58a0c09f8c3

(20807)

on August 06, 2010
at 03:15 AM

The question is for paleo eating. Paleos often do not consume a lot of diary. You would need to be drinking many glasses of milk per day to get the calcium RDA. Few of us paleos guzzle that kind of milk or eat lots of cheese all day. Besides, I already know how to get plenty of vitamin D so I am not asking that question.

62ed65f3596aa2f62fa1d58a0c09f8c3

(20807)

on August 08, 2010
at 04:35 AM

Look at how MUCH is in veggies. The answer is not much. Bone is the only source I see that has tons of calcium and was likely eaten in the paleo. In fact, some researchers of ancient times think we at lots of bones back then via small animal consumption. THis would have been a very natural paleo calcium source.

B0fe7b5a9a197cd293978150cbd9055f

(8938)

on February 23, 2012
at 08:39 AM

Unfortunately, bone meal is known to be a bad source of calcium. A good source of calcium on paleo is : some veggies, egg shells, spring water, bone broth (?), and I believe chia seeds and garden cress have some too. Garden cress tastes and smells really good.

Answer Question


Get FREE instant access to our
Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!