Hi Thomas,

> Jean-Louis Tu <[log in to unmask]>:
> >On the subject "where do people who don't use dairy get their calcium
> >from?", I came across an abstract which says that the calcium absorption
> >rate from soft-boned Bengali fish is 24%, which is about the same as
> >the absorption rate from milk. It is concluded that soft fish bones
> >constitute a good source of calcium.
>
> Tom:
> Good point. At his recent talk, Carl Phillips (Vegan, Ph.D. in nutrition)
> claimed that calcium can be problematic in vegan diets and suggested
> that vegans consume fortified (supplemented) orange juice or soymilk.
> Some greens are rich in calcium, but may be high in calcium inhibitors
> as well.
>
Bones probably (most certainly I would have thought) are a better
source of calcium than milk for weaned off humans. Whether early
man (prefire man) consumed soft-boned fish is an entirely different
argument. In order to absorb calcium safely the source must fulfil
three prerequisites: Phosphorus (a calcium antagonist) must be present
in a ratio of roughly 2:1 (two parts calcium to one part phosphorus)
and magnesium must also be present in roughly the same ratio. This gives
a good guide to good calcium, magnesium and phosphorus sources. If
any of these minerals are not bioavailable for any reason (like
the total calcium contained in milk for most humans weaned off)
then the bones and any other body sources will be robbed of the
non-bioavailable mineral to equal out the situation. Look at all
foods from this standpoint and it is relatively easy to identify
the "good" sources of these minerals. The actual amounts of each
mineral in the source are irrelevant if the proportions are wrong.

Best regards,

Alan