Bill R wrote:
>> pathos wrote:
> >
> > In article <385626D5.4786 at erols.com>, Stuart Dunn <dunns99 at erols.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Protein intakes far above 100g increase the risk of
> > > kidney failure, and certain types of protein, such as egg white protein
> > > and casein, increase the amount of calium that is removed from the
> > > bloodstream by the kidneys. In extreme cases, this causes kidney stones.
> > > If that calcium that is lost is not properly replaced (from milk,
> > > calcium pills, or food), osteoperosis will result.
> >
> > Sounds to me like this can be substaintiated with a paper or two. You
> > state is a fact and it may be a fact but let the studies decide that.
>> The person above is failing to consider that for a valid
> comparison, all other parameters should be the same:
> same total calcium, same total phosphorus.
>> I bet that is not so in whatever study he is looking at.
>> In any cases, the demographic group with the highest
> bone mineral density -- namely, weightlifters -- also
> is one with among the highest protein intakes. So it
> certainly is not true that high protein diets *will*
> cause calcium loss.
>> This would be apparent to anyone capable of even
> a modicum of thought.
All I'll say is that the vegan/anti-protein folks really need to look
at more current reseearch. The protein-calcium loss is far from
proven and recent research suggests that the early studies suggesting
kidney damage were drawing false conclusions.
They might want to check out the paper:
Millward, DJ. "Optimal intakes of protein in the human diet" Proc
Nutr Soc (1999) 58: 403-413.
Rather than quoting from 20 year old books.
Lyle
