Here are some excerpts from the article which was about the Women’s Health Initiative study:
“In this large trial, more than 36,000 postmenopausal women aged 50-79 years were randomly assigned to treatment with a combination of calcium carbonate at a dose of 1000 mg elemental calcium plus vitamin D3 400 IU daily, or placebo.
“We now have 3 lines of evidence of benefit for calcium plus vitamin D supplementation: the reduction in hip fracture seen among adherent women, the reduction in vertebral fracture in the intention-to-treat analyses, and the improvement or better results for bone mineral density…
“In terms of all cancers, among the women who had low baseline intake of vitamin D, there was a statistically significant 9% reduction in total cancer with supplementation, and also a marginally significant 9% reduction in all-cause mortality.”
The report also said that there was no increase in cardiovascular disease for women taking supplements.
For the last many weeks, I have been in an undisclosed location working on an article on oxalates. I think it has been my 3rd biggest project to date, the other two being the epic adventure Vitamin B12: A Love Story followed by Soy: What’s the Harm?
But before I release the article on oxalates, I am writing to let you know that upon getting a bit more information about the oxalate content of foods and re-analyzing the data, I have expanded and moved the table Calcium & Oxalate Content of Foods to a new page and also slightly modified the absorption category for some greens:
– Studies have shown that calcium in fortified soymilk, bok choy, kale, and mustard greens is absorbed well.
– Based on oxalate levels, the calcium in turnip greens, watercress, and broccoli should also be absorbed well.
– Based on oxalate levels, the calcium in collards should be absorbed moderately well.
– Studies have shown that the calcium in spinach and rhubarb is not absorbed well.
– Based on oxalate levels, the calcium in beet greens and swiss chard should not be absorbed well.
I know a lot of people have oxalate stories, but please do not send me any links to oxalate info before I publish my piece! Once it comes out, I’ll be happy to receive any info you think I have missed. Thanks!
– The nutrient intakes included supplements. However, they also used median amounts (rather than averages) which means someone using a very large dose of a supplement would not skew the “average” intake.
– 45% of the AHS-2 subjects were vegetarian and approximately 8% were strict vegetarians or what I’m calling “vegan.” They eat any category of animal products (meat, fish, eggs, dairy) less than once per month.
– There were two tables of nutrient intakes given in the paper and I used the one that was not adjusted for sex, race, and age as I’m not clear what that actually means in the case of nutrient intakes.
– The lacto-ovo vegetarians ate less dairy protein than the regular meat-eaters (median intake of 7.5 vs. 11.8 g per day). I have seen people suggest that lacto-ovo vegetarians tend to eat a lot more dairy than your average meat-eater, but this shows that is, on average, not the case.
– It was great to see that the median intake of vitamin B12 for vegans was 6.3 µg per day, but there were still many vegans not getting nearly enough as the 5th percentile was at a mere .4 µg per day.
– Calcium intake for the vegans was excellent at 933 mg per day. The 5th percentile was 520 mg. This was much better than the calcium intakes in the bone fracture study from EPIC-Oxford where almost half the vegans were getting less than 525 mg per day (more info).
– Sodium wasn’t terrible at 3,066 mg per day, but would ideally not be over 2,300.
– It looks like vegans ate as many calories as the regular meat-eaters. That’s hard for me to believe and could be an error in the methodology. Or, perhaps, the vegans really did eat as many calories, but you don’t see that often.
1. Rizzo NS, Jaceldo-Siegl K, Sabate J, Fraser GE. Nutrient Profiles of Vegetarian and Nonvegetarian Dietary Patterns. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2013 Aug 26. [Epub ahead of print] | link
“The theory is that animal protein, through its acidifying action, “leaches” calcium from bones, eventually weakening them and causing bone fractures. If that’s true, it means that those of us who eat no animal protein are likely to have better bone health. And maybe even lower calcium needs.
“Unfortunately, it’s not true. Or at the very least, the evidence in support of this relationship has fizzled over the years. I’ve written about this before, but it remains such a pervasive and potentially harmful belief that it deserves an occasional revisit.”
She has been told to get 1,200 mg of calcium per day. But if the calcium from greens in only absorbed at less than 50%, does that mean she needs to get a higher amount of calcium in her diet so that she absorbs a full 1,200 mg?
The answer is that dietary recommendations are made knowing that a nutrient is only partially absorbed from the diet. It depends on the nutrient and recommendations are made for each nutrient based on its typical absorption rate.
In extreme cases, such as the calcium from spinach that is absorbed at only about 5%, you would need to make modifications to rely only on spinach or foods with a similar absorption rate. But the recommendations for calcium assume that only about 1/3 is going to be absorbed from the best sources (not sure the exact number the Institute of Medicine uses).
But this is a reason why I never mention getting one’s calcium from legumes or nuts and seeds – when you combine their relatively low amounts of calcium and their low absorption rates, you cannot rely on them for the bulk of your calcium needs. They will supply some, but not nearly enough.
Focus on the greens with higher amounts of calcium that is moderate to highly absorbable, calcium-set tofu, and fortified foods or supplements.
Based on some comments by a reader and their finding a chart of oxalate content of various greens published by the USDA (thanks, dimqua!), I decided to more rigorously document the calcium absorption from greens. What I came up with is shown in Table 5 of the (newly renamed) article on bones on VeganHealth.org, Calcium and Vitamin D.
Here is a summary of the findings:
• Studies have shown that calcium in fortified soymilk, bok choy, kale, and mustard greens is absorbed well.
• Based on oxalate levels, the calcium in turnip greens should also be absorbed well.
• Based on oxalate levels, the calcium in collards, broccoli, and watercress should be absorbed moderately well.
• Studies have shown that the calcium in spinach and rhubarb is not absorbed well.
• Based on oxalate levels, the calcium in beet greens should not be absorbed well.
This is an abridged version of Calcium and Vitamin D, which includes references and more details on just about every paragraph below. This should conclude my calcium-vitamin D barrage of the past few weeks!
Americans are regularly being urged to consume more calcium in order to prevent osteoporosis. It is practically impossible to meet the recommendations without large amounts of cows’ milk, calcium-fortified foods, or supplements.
Because vegans do not eat dairy products, without fortified foods or supplements their calcium intakes tend to be low (about 400-600 mg per day compared to the U.S. recommended intake of 1,000 mg per day).
Traditionally, the vegan community has responded to this by saying osteoporosis is a disease of calcium loss from the bones, not a lack of calcium in the diet. This was based on two ideas.
The first idea is that ecological studies have shown that the countries with the highest intake of dairy products (northern Europe and the USA) have higher rates of hip fractures than do Asian and African countries where much less milk is consumed. This in turn, can be explained by the second idea, which is that studies show that after ingesting animal protein, people urinate large amounts of calcium.
Therefore, the thinking goes, calcium intake isn’t important for preventing osteoporosis and vegans are protected due to the lack of animal protein in their diets.
Unfortunately, there is a lot of evidence to suggest that this is not correct. It turns out that hip fractures are more indicative of the risk of falling than of osteoporosis in some countries, with a recent study from Hong Kong showing that while men and women in Hong Kong had lower rates of hip fractures, they had higher rates of vertebral factures, and the women had higher rates of osteoporosis than Caucasian women.
As for protein leaching calcium from bones into the urine – it’s a lot more complicated than that. The studies that showed calcium to be urinated out were done using protein isolates whereas eating protein from whole foods does not result in a calcium imbalance. Population studies and clinical trials show that protein, including animal protein, does not have a negative effect on bones (more details here).
So where does that leave vegans?
Vegans’ bone mineral density, a measure of osteoporosis, has been shown in many studies to be slightly lower than non-vegans. More importantly, the one study on Western vegans measuring fracture rates over time found that vegans in the group who got less than 525 mg of calcium per day had a higher fracture rate than vegans in the group getting more than 525 mg. The vegans in the lower calcium group also had higher fracture rates than the meat-eaters and lacto-ovo vegetarians.
Although it is possible to meet the calcium recommendations by eating greens alone, the average vegan probably will not meet recommendations without drinking a glass of fortified drink each day, eating calcium-set tofu, or taking a 250 – 300 mg supplement (in addition to eating an otherwise balanced diet).
The greens highest in absorbable calcium are kale, mustard greens, bok choy, turnip greens, collards, and watercress (more info). In addition to calcium, greens also contain vitamin K, potassium, and magnesium, which also contribute to better bone health.
While spinach, Swiss chard, and beet greens are high in calcium, it is not well absorbed due to their also high content of oxalates, which bind calcium and prevent absorption from the digestive tract.
Research is mixed about whether calcium intakes above 1,400 mg per day can put people at risk for chronic disease. If you take a calcium supplement, it’s best not to go overboard. Most vegans taking 250-300 mg per day would not come close to 1,400 mg.
Vitamin D is also important for bones, as it can increase calcium absorption when the body signals that it needs calcium. Research has shown that in populations with calcium intakes similar to omnivores in the United States, vitamin D is more important than calcium for preventing osteoporosis.
In recent years, vitamin D has also been linked to many other diseases and some researchers have suggested that the recommended vitamin D levels are too low. However, the Institute of Medicine has reviewed the research and concluded that is not the case. The controversy has resulted in many people thinking they are deficient in vitamin D when they are not.
The only significant, natural, dietary sources of vitamin D are fatty fish, eggs (if chickens have been fed vitamin D), and mushrooms (if treated with UV rays). Most Americans get their dietary vitamin D through fortified milk and fortified margarine. The vegan diet contains little, if any, vitamin D without fortified foods or supplements. On average, vegans’ vitamin D levels are adequate, but somewhat lower than non-vegans.
Most people get a significant amount of their vitamin D from the action of UV rays on their skin. While the body can store vitamin D made in the sunnier months for use during less sunny times, this does not work for everyone. In fact, some people, even those living in sunny climates, develop extremely low levels of vitamin D. This can manifest itself through fatigue and bone pain.
If your arms and face (or the equivalent amount of skin or more) is exposed to the following amounts of midday sun (10 am to 2 pm), without sunscreen, on a day when sunburn is possible (i.e., not winter or cloudy), then you should not need any dietary vitamin D that day:
On all other days, people older than one year should get 600 to 1,000 IU of vitamin D.
Due to skin cancer concerns, some dermatologists recommend getting all your vitamin D from supplements rather than the sun. The amounts of sun above for light and dark-skinned people should be safe, but I have not seen research on how much sun is safe for elderly people and recommend talking to your doctor about how to get vitamin D if you believe you are at risk for skin cancer.
600 to 1,000 IU of vitamin D is only available in supplemental form or specially treated mushrooms.
There are two forms of supplemental vitamin D: D2 and D3. Vitamin D2 is always vegan, made from exposing fungi to UV rays. Vitamin D3 normally comes from fish oil or sheep’s wool, but there is a vegan version made by Vitashine.
A great deal of research has been conducted on vitamin D2 and D3. Vitamin D2 is effective at increasing bone mineral density (when given to people who are deficient). Vitamin D2 can also increase vitamin D levels temporarily, but is not as effective as vitamin D3 at keeping vitamin D levels raised when taken only weekly. If you take vitamin D on a regular basis, D2 should be fine, whereas if you are only going to take it sporadically, without getting sun in the interim, or find that your vitamin D levels will not increase on D2, then you should opt for D3.
If you are trying to raise your vitamin D levels with D2, make sure the laboratory can detect vitamin D2, and not just vitamin D3. Also make sure that you are not trying to raise your levels beyond what the Institute of Medicine says is adequate (50 nmol/l or 20 ng/ml) as there’s no sense in worrying if you cannot seem to get your vitamin D levels twice as high as necessary!
(Thank you to everyone who donated and used the Amazon links over the weekend! And especially to O.P. from the Southern hemisphere whose email address wasn’t working.)
I have come across another recent report on calcium supplements. This time, instead of correlating calcium intake with rates of disease, the calcification of arteries was studied (1).
Researchers in the Framingham Study measured calcium intakes and then followed participants for four years at which time they measured the amount of calcification of their arteries. They found no correlation or trends with calcium intake and calcification of the arteries in amounts up to about 3,000 mg per day in either men or women. Ditto for calcium supplements of 500 mg per day or more compared to 0 or 1-500 mg per day.
The authors of the study note one other study looking at calcification of the arteries (2) which found no association in the prospective arm, though did find a cross-sectional correlation at baseline.
One can hope that more studies will not come out to contradict these findings!
1. Samelson EJ, Booth SL, Fox CS, Tucker KL, Wang TJ, Hoffmann U, Cupples LA, O’Donnell CJ, Kiel DP. Calcium intake is not associated with increased coronary artery calcification: the Framingham Study. Am J Clin Nutr. 2012 Dec;96(6):1274-80. | link
2. Wang TK, Bolland MJ, van Pelt NC, Horne AM, Mason BH, Ames RW, Grey AB, Ruygrok PN, Gamble GD, Reid IR. Relationships between vascular calcification, calcium metabolism, bone density, and fractures. J Bone Miner Res. 2010 Dec;25(12):2777-85. doi: 10.1002/jbmr.183. Epub 2010 Jul 16. Erratum in: J Bone Miner Res. 2011 Feb;26(2):439. (Abstract) | link
Yesterday, I wrote about a clinical trial comparing soy vs. cow’s milk’s impact on bone mineral density (BMD) in Chinese women (link). To sum it up, the cow’s milk fared better than soy, which fared better than nothing.
Today I found a prospective study from the Adventist Health Study-2 (2011) comparing soy vs. cow’s milk (1). They followed 337 post-menopausal, Caucasian women, who had not been previously diagnosed with osteoporosis, for two years. 61% were considered vegetarians because they ate meat less than once a month.
The authors sum up the results:
“Those drinking soy milk at least once a day or more (highest category) were 57% less likely to have osteoporosis than those who never used soy milk [.43 (.21–.89)]. Likewise, those eating dairy products at least once a day or more were 62% less likely to have osteoporosis than those consuming dairy less than twice a week [.38 (.17–.86)].”
There was not a separate soymilk group and cow’s milk group, both findings were comparing the entire group of women to each other, though the results for each milk were adjusted for intake of the other milk.
The researchers did not measure total calcium intake, but they seemed to assume that most of this soymilk was calcium-fortified. They also found no correlation between calcium or vitamin D supplement usage (amounts not measured) and better bone health.
Interestingly, cheese was the only dairy product that, when separated out, was correlated with better bone health (the other categories were “milk,” and “yogurt/ice-cream”). The authors speculated that it was due to the higher calcium and protein content of cheese.
In conclusion, it appears to be about equally beneficial for bone health for Caucasian, postmenopausal women to be drinking either soymilk or cow’s milk.
1. Matthews VL, Knutsen SF, Beeson WL, Fraser GE. Soy milk and dairy consumption is independently associated with ultrasound attenuation of the heel bone among postmenopausal women: the Adventist Health Study-2. Nutr Res. 2011 Oct;31(10):766-75. | link
I’m going through my backlog of research on bones in order to write a reader-friendly version of the tome that is Bones, Vitamin D, and Calcium on VeganHealth.org.
In January 2012, a report from China was released of a randomized clinical trial comparing the effects of cow’s milk and soymilk on bone mineral density (BMD) in postmenopausal women (1).
The women were divided into three groups: soy, cow’s, and control. The women knew which treatment they were receiving, while the control group got nothing. The milk and soymilk had 250 mg of calcium and they drank one serving per day.
BMD was measured in the spine, hip, and femur at 6, 12, and 18 months.
In the cow’s milk group, BMD increased in the hip and femur. In the soymilk group, BMD did not change significantly, but showed a downward trend in all three locations. In the control group, there was a downward trend in all three locations that only reached significance in the femur at 18 months.
It should be strongly noted that the participants were asked to avoid calcium from other milks and supplements during the trial which means their total calcium intake was probably quite low and I’m somewhat amazed that their BMD didn’t decrease more or in all three groups. Total calcium intake during the study period was not reported.
Compliance was 93.1% in the cow’s milk group and 82.5% in the soymilk group. This might explain a small amount of the differences between those groups. Other possibilities are that calcium in fortified soymilk is known to quickly settle to the bottom of the milk where it might not be ingested but left in the container, and that milk contains phosphorus and growth factors that might increase BMD.
This is just one small study and more work needs to be done before any conclusions should be drawn.
1. Gui JC, Brašić JR, Liu XD, Gong GY, Zhang GM, Liu CJ, Gao GQ. Bone mineral density in postmenopausal Chinese women treated with calcium fortification in soymilk and cow’s milk. Osteoporos Int. 2012 May;23(5):1563-70. Epub 2012 Jan 27. | link