Thanks for the link Sandy.

(http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/92/4/940)

Working with just the abstract above, it is difficult to guess what 
might be in the full paper. However, since the authors have, according 
to the abstract, extrapolated, assumed, and estimated, there may be 
little reason to be shy about countering their stated position as it 
appears in the abstract:

As one of a number of other research groups who have looked at this 
issue in some depth, Hunt et al, after a careful study of data drawn 
from a randomized, crossover, controlled feeding study state: "Under 
practical dietary conditions, increased dietary protein from animal 
sources was not detrimental to calcium balance or short-term indicators 
of bone health." Am J Clin Nutr 2009;89:1357–65.

Strohle et al have conducted several studies of apparently similar 
design, with very similar results. It appears that their strategy is to 
repeat the same statement so many times that it becomes accepted as 
truth. The strategy makes sense. It has worked for pharmaceutical 
companies on their serum cholesterol scam, the manufacturers of sun 
screen, and for agribusiness as they have shifted our eating habits to 
current self-destructive practices through touting grains, dairy, soy, 
etc. as healthy foods while denigrating meats and fats.

I don't know which is worse, the researchers that shill for these 
vested-interest groups, or the gullible sheep who, despite years of 
education in physiology and biology, and without a moment's critical 
thought, accept such claims at face value and visit derivative faulty 
information on their customers/clients/patients.

End of rant.

-- 
PK