Blood Type Diet - Peter d'Adamo

[Laura]

Jeep, I would definitely suggest you try the Ultra-Mind Quiz and consider - just consider - that drinking cow's milk COULD be at the root of some of your problems.

You see, everybody is different and has different tolerances for abusing their bodies. Some people have really super natural detox pathways that work very well and may not become overburdened until later in life. They may also have avoided a lot of exposure when young so that the overburden does not accumulate as fast.

Other people, depending on where they live, their family environment, and other factors, may become toxically overburdened very early in life or their natural ability to detox may not be as strong, so such people can have issues with toxicity and inability to withstand insults or handling substances that are not exactly the best foods.

So, considering those kinds of things, genetics, environment, and so on, it is easy to see that there may not be a consistent "red flag warning" that is the same for everyone in regards to substances that we take into our bodies.

For example, I have a friend who is, like me, blood type 0+. We talked a bit about milk and wheat (this was back in my early days of getting educated about these things) and that type Os should avoid both completely. She insisted that it never upset her stomach at all and she had NO problems except gout in her big toes... and, of course, she was a colon cancer survivor... but that couldn't have anything to do with wheat or milk!

I just pointed out that gluten was possibly implicated in her colon cancer and both wheat and milk can be implicated in gout and arthritic conditions.

But, since it didn't "upset her stomach," she couldn't see how what she ate made any difference!

Well, milk doesn't upset my stomach either (though wheat does)... but I can sure feel it almost instantly. You may not feel it, but you may be suffering the effects of it systemically.

I'm not saying you are, I'm saying you should consider the possibility.

If you will read the book "The Magnesium Miracle," you will learn that our culture promotes "calcium, calcium, calcium" as the solution to osteoporosis, but we actually get too much calcium and not enough magnesium.

Psyche, on the forum here, is a cardiac surgeon and has described to me some of the horrors she has seen doing heart operations. Most often, when the heart fails, it is because it has turned to stone due to too much calcium and too little magnesium. They actually use bone chewing saws to remove calcified heart valves so as to be able to install artificial valves!

But do doctors - even cardiologists - talk to their patients about diet and how their hearts turned to stone over the years? No. Why? Because they are not taught about these things and they ARE taught that surgery and drugs are the answers.

Probably the reason some peoples have been able to utilize cows milk for food in environments where it was the best option, and remained healthy, was because there were not so many other toxins in the environment and their natural detox pathways worked well and they could compensate for putting into their bodies substances that were not optimal fuel. And that is probably the same reason that some people can still do so: genes and environment.

It still doesn't make it the best fuel for the body and, when push comes to shove and the toxic burden becomes too great, various illnesses and systemic break-downs will occur pretty much as you have described your own case.

 

[JEEP]

Thank you Anart, gwb, and Laura for your replies.

For example, I have a friend who is, like me, blood type 0+. We talked a bit about milk and wheat (this was back in my early days of getting educated about these things) and that type Os should avoid both completely. She insisted that it never upset her stomach at all and she had NO problems except gout in her big toes... and, of course, she was a colon cancer survivor... but that couldn't have anything to do with wheat or milk!

Why Sugar, Wheat (Grain) and Gluten-Free?

What turns healthcare practitioners into Entrepreneurs? I hope that the answer is Passion to make the world a healthier place. At least, that is what happened at The Sweet Life.

Dr. Fran Gare is the co-author of four of Dr. Atkins books (creating the recipes and meal plans) and was the Director of Nutrition of The Atkins Center For Clinical Nutrition. The Atkins Diet is an innovation that exposed and successfully treated many of the health problems we see today—diabetes, cancer, heart disease, hypertension, IBS, and wheat and gluten sensitivity.

The Atkins Center was not a Diet Center, it was a Complimentary Medical Center practicing cutting-edge alternative medical techniques, and under Dr. Atkins watchful eye, Fran guided patients to nutritional health. And that is where the passion behind this company began.

Take Out the Sugar

The Atkins Diet removed sugar from the diet. Patients hated the thought that they could never again indulge in sweet desserts.

Fran took the “you are taking the sweetness out of my life” complaints of her patients seriously. She always felt that if she found a healthy sugar alternative, that she would develop products that everyone could enjoy healthfully.

70% of patients tested positive to Wheat and Gluten Sensitivity

Every patient coming into the center was tested for food sensitivities. An amazing 70% tested positively to wheat and gluten.

Gluten sensitivities where rarely thought of in the 1980 and 90’s except in extreme Celiac cases. Yet it was something that was looked at in every patient coming into the Atkins Center. The Atkins Diet removed all grains (which included wheat and gluten) from the patients diet and the results were astounding.

With the sugar and grains gone, diabetics had normal insulin levels, problems they were having with digestion cleared in days, healthy cholesterol levels increased, unhealthy cholesterol levels decreased, blood pressure went down, and patients moods changed, they were happier in their lives.

Seeing patients do so well was a joyful experience. So when Fran came across xylitol at a medical seminar she was attending, she remembered the promise she made herself.

So, one night—with Hurricane Irene furiously blowing at the door, Fran and Registered Dietitian, Reesa Sokoloff, were housebound in Fran’s Florida home with little to do—so they went into the kitchen and made brownies that were sugar, grain and gluten free—And The Sweet Life Was Born.

Today Fran is still in the kitchen doing the R&D resulting in the extraordinary desserts that are now available as finished goods in the market place, and Reesa runs the day to day of the company keeping it on-track and building it’s business success.

A former coworker of mine (a couple years older than me) was diagnosed with celiac disease in 2006, which happens to run in her family. Since that time, I have become increasingly aware that wheat is not a good thing to be eating. Also, several years back, my husband and I did the Atkins diet for several weeks. We both lost weight. My take on it was that it lowered one's metabolic set point, the weight your body tends to be in the normal course of daily eating. Dieting or temporary over-indulgence usually results in a bounce back to this set point weight once normal eating habits resume. Just my thought in regards to the Atkins diet.

From the time that cancer was first diagnosed (some three hundred to five hundred years ago) to the present, most members of the medical profession have treated this disease using the theory that the tumor is the disease. This theory said that, if you can remove the tumor or destroy the tumor, you will cure the disease. Drs. Krebs, Burk, Nieper, and others said in essence, "Wrong!" These men had seen thousands of cancer patients die. They realized that ninety-five per cent of these patients had their tumors treated with surgery, and/or radiation, and/or chemotherapy. It was obvious to them that, if removing the tumor or destroying the tumor cured the disease, ninety-five percent of these people would be alive and well. It was, therefore, equally obvious to them that removing the tumor or destroying the tumor did not cure the disease. This meant, of course, that the tumor was not the cause of the disease but was merely a symptom of the disease.

Let me compare this with appendicitis. The patient with appendicitis complains of pain. The pain is a symptom of this disease. I can give that patient enough morphine or Demerol to stop the pain. Do I then say to the patient, "Your pain is gone. You're cured!" No! I know that the pain will come back, because I have done nothing to correct the condition within the body that is causing the pain. I have to remove the infected appendix in order to treat the cause. These researchers used this same line of reasoning — they said, if you just remove the tumor and don't treat the condition within the body that allowed the tumor to develop in the first place, the tumor will come back. Of course, they are right! The tumor almost always comes back.

These men dug deeper. While each was working independently, they were all happy to share any of their findings with anyone who would listen. One would find something and send it to the others. One would add something to that and send it on. The result of all of this work was that these men found that the body does have a normal defense against cancer, and they were able to describe how that defense mechanism functioned.

They found that the cancer cell is coated with a protein lining, and that it was this protein lining (or covering) that prevented the body's normal defenses from getting to the cancer cell. They found that, if you could dissolve the protein lining from around the cancer cell, the body's normal defenses, the leukocytes (white blood ceils), would destroy the cancer cell. They found that the dissolving of the protein lining (or covering) from around the cancer cell was done very nicely within the body by two enzymes: trypsin and chymotrypsin. These enzymes are secreted by the pancreas. Thus, they said that the enzymes trypsin and chymotrypsin formed the body's first line of defense against cancer.

What's an enzyme? I just knew you were going to ask! An enzyme is a catalyst. What's a catalyst? Back in your high school chemistry you were taught the definition of a catalyst. I'm sure that none of you have forgotten that definition. Just in case that definition has (only momentarily, of course) escaped your memory, it is as follows: A catalyst is a substance which causes a chemical reaction to take place without, itself, becoming a part of that chemical reaction. See, I knew you would remember! There are numerous enzymes within the body that are responsible for the hundreds of chemical reactions which must take place in order to keep the body functioning normally. You have now completed Physiology 101.

In addition to finding that trypsin and chymotrypsin formed the body's first line of defense against cancer, Dr. Krebs et al. found that the body has a second line of defense against this disease. This second line of defense is formed by a group of substances known as nitrilosides. The cancer cell has an enzyme, beta-glucosidase, which, when it comes in contact with nitrilosides, converts those nitrilosides into two molecules of glucose, one molecule of benzaldehyde and one molecule of hydrogen cyanide. Originally, it was thought that only the hydrogen cyanide was toxic to the cancer cell. Recent evidence has shown that, while the hydrogen cyanide may exert some toxic effect, it is the benzaldehyde that is extremely toxic to the cancer cell.

What is so significant about this is that this is a target-specific reaction. Within the body, the cancer cell and only the cancer cell contains the enzyme beta-glucosidase. Thus, the benzaldehyde and the hydrogen cyanide can be formed in the presence of the cancer cell, and only the cancer cell. Thus, they are toxic to the cancer cell and only the cancer cell. The normal cell contains the enzyme, rhodanese, which converts the nitrilosides into food.

These researchers found that all of us probably have cancer many times in our lives. If our defense mechanisms are functioning normally, the body kills off the cancer cells, and we're never even aware that it happened. If, however, there is a breakdown in that defense mechanism when the cancer cells appear, there is nothing to prevent the growth of those cancer cells and soon there is a tumor.

What causes a breakdown in that defense mechanism? Suppose you have an individual who is eating large quantities of animal protein. It takes large amounts of the enzymes trypsin and chymotrypsin to digest animal protein. It is possible that this individual is using up all, or almost all, of his trypsin and chymotrypsin for digestive purposes. There is nothing left over for the rest of the body. Thus, this individual has lost his first line of defense against cancer.

Suppose this individual has little or no nitrilosides in his diet. This is quite possible. Millet, which is very high in nitrilosides, used to be the staple grain. We went from millet to wheat, which contains no nitrilosides. Our cattle used to graze and eat large quantities of grasses, which are high in nitrilosides. Now we grain-feed our cattle. There are no nitrilosides in the grain.

So, you now have an individual who, because of his high intake of animal protein, has lost his first line of defense against cancer and who, because of his low intake of nitrilosides, has no second line of defense against cancer. Should cancer cells appear at this time, there is nothing to prevent their growth. The results? Tumor!

As Krebs et al. then pointed out, you can remove the tumor, but, if you do not correct the defects in that individual's defense mechanisms, that tumor will come back.

This means that you must markedly reduce the intake of animal protein in these people and replace it with vegetable protein. Vegetable protein requires nothing in the way of the enzymes trypsin and chymotrypsin for digestion. Thus, you can free these enzymes from being used up for digestive purposes, put them back into the body and re-establish the body's first line of defense against cancer.

It means that you must also restore the body's second line of defense against cancer by establishing an adequate level of nitrilosides in these individuals. While there are some 1,500 foods that contain nitrilosides, the researchers found that the most rapid way to build up the nitriloside level was by the use of Laetrile. They did not proclaim Laetrile as a "miracle drug" or a "cancer cure" but merely described it as a concentrated form of nitrilosides, which was able to rapidly raise the nitriloside level and to re-establish the body's second line of defense against cancer.

Perhaps the thing that impressed me most in this large volume of material that I was trying to assimilate, was that all of these researchers stressed the point that cancer was a multiple-variable disease. One of the problems with those of us in the medical profession is that we are used to looking at chronic metabolic diseases (diseases which start within the body, such as diabetes, scurvy, pernicious anemia, pellagra, and cancer) as single-variable diseases. For example, in diabetes, the single-variable deficiency is insulin. In scurvy, it's Vitamin C, and in pernicious anemia, it's B12. Cancer is a multiple-variable deficiency disease.

These researchers showed that there can be a number of deficiencies within the cancer patient. This, they said, did not mean that all cancer patients had all of these deficiencies, but that any given cancer patient could have six, or eight or ten of these deficiencies. They found, for example, that zinc was the transportation mechanism for the nitrilosides. They found that you could give Laetrile until it came out of the ears of the patient, but, if that patient did not have a sufficient level of zinc, none of the Laetrile would get into the tissues of the body. They also found that nothing heals within the body without sufficient Vitamin C. They found that manganese, magnesium, selenium, Vitamin B, Vitamin A, etc., all played an important part in maintaining the body's defense mechanisms. The most important thing they stressed was that, unless you correct all of these deficiencies, you are not going to help that patient. Thus, they were talking about a total nutritional program. They were talking about a program that consisted of diet, vitamins, minerals, enzymes and Laetrile.

OK, you are totally preaching to the choir on this--I agree 100% that my lifetime diet is contributing to any and all aspects of my ill health due to loss of real nutrients and toxic buildup. Let's review:

1) It is likely that up to 70% of population have a wheat and gluten sensitivity. I am probably one of those 70% even though I cannot link anything specific to it. I really don't like whole wheat bread, so along in the 80's, when it became clear that white bread was nutritional cardboard, I switched to oat bread. But I kept hearing how one should be eating wheat for nutrition as well. So eventually, I found a oat w/wheat bread and used that. Although I often ate eggs, oats, pancakes, and cream of wheat for breakfast growing up, as I got older and through the years, I became more of a cereal eater, to the point that I was eating only one specific kind of cereal every morning. Early to mid-80's was a cereal actually called Buckwheats! Not every store carried it and I was actually buying it by the case in order to have it on hand. It was heavily sugared but not having weight issues, that didn't bother me. It was discontinued and I switched to Almond Delight which was also subsequently discontinued and now I eat Oatmeal Crisp (crunchy almond) mostly with skim milk. My daughter doesn't like skim milk, so sometimes I use 1 or 2%. And yes, I like sweetened cereals - can't really stand the unsweetened kinds although I am OK with slightly sweet.

OK - I had already realized that this cereal along with milk for breakfast (and again, I now don't think any living creature should be drinking pasteurized milk from grain fed cattle, not even baby cows - not pasteurized for them but still compromised milk from grain fed mother cow) was going to need to be replaced by something else. After years of eating this way, finding a something else was going to be a challenge!

2)Humankind used to eat millet but now mostly eat wheat. Cows used to eat grass but now are fed grain. Thus, for my whole life I have been consuming wheat, which has no nitrilosides, the beef I have been eating is from cows eating grain, which has no nitrilosides, and the milk I have been drinking is the unnatural product from a grain fed cow that has been further compromised by pasteurization/homogenization.

3) I have been drinking fluoridated water my entire life, a known carcinogenic industrial waste, I have had numerous dental fillings, and the basic childhood vaccinations and a tetanus shot as an adult.

4)60% of the lettuce in this country is produced under the auspices of Monsanto; the nutritional content of even fresh fruits and vegetables is suspected to have dropped from previous levels; canola oil (which I switched to believing it was a healthy alternative) is now a totally GM, artificial concoction also unfit for human consumption. How much of the corn on the cob I eat is now GM without my knowing it? How many GM foods are being incorporated into other processed foods without my knowing it? It wasn't allowed to show on the milk labels if the milk was from cows getting growth hormones to produce more milk. Practically all packaged food is encased in plastic or exposed to plastic liners inside cans.

5)Americans used to cook with butter and lard. These were declared unhealthy and replaced by margarine and Criso. I ate that stuff pretty much my entire life along with vegetable oil - the 'healthy' choice! Remember the giant brouhaha when it was revealed that movie theatre popcorn was cooked in - horrors! - coconut oil? Food producers couldn't eliminate coconut oil fast enough from their products there was such a public clamor! And remember when you used to see coconut or palm kernel oil as a common ingredient - have they ever bitten the dust!

So, pretty much everything I have ever been told about health and nutrition is a total lie! Looking at all the elements I have been exposed to my entire life, I'm surprised my health issues are as few and as minimal as they are! Not so for many of the people I know. I can count many people with MS, fibromyalgia, cancer, diabetes, arthritis, and on and on. Little wonder - we are being attacked from every direction - our food, water, air along with the ever increasing stress of everyday life. Is it really possible to attribute any specific disease to any specific cause when you look at the totality of all the toxic elements that have been incorporated into our living environment?

Just to interject here, prior to 2003, I was taking a magnesium supplement because of an article I had read emphasizing its importance (reduced migraines, etc) and evening primrose oil based on the book, Eat Fat - Be Thin, along with the recommended calcium supplements and the prescription Evista. Long story short, my life turned upside down, and before the end of 2005, it was clear that the life I had been living since 1979, was gone. This due to the most bizarre series of events you can imagine. My friend even described it as 'a perfect storm'. Early on I went from a size 10/12 to a 4 in about 3 months! Traumatizing grief and stress had a lot to do with that. Plus, when I'm seriously depressed, I lose my appetite to the point I can't even stand the thought of food. I stopped taking calcium mostly because the flavor I liked was discontinued but also, I had read the thread about the over consumption of calcium. I quit taking Evista because I have totally lost faith with the medical profession and the drugs they are hawking! I won't even mention what my poor dad went through after his diagnosis was FINALLY made!

I don't have the answers. I do have this forum. I will continue to read and reread all suggested references along with the diet/health threads and try to figure out how best to change my diet (and let's not forget about the cost of eating/living healthy - a 16oz jar of hempbutter at the natural food store was $28.29!) in a way that will actually work for me. Frankly, no matter how healthy something is, if I don't like it, I'm not going to eat it. Thank you all for your input and guidance - it is much appreciated!

 

[Laura]

I will mention that I use ghee - clarified butter - and tolerate it well. But the proteins in milk are just intolerable.

 

[Gaby]

Severely calcified valves and arteries were probably my worst nightmare. To remove the calcium, we have to use surgical instruments such as the "bone eater" - and even with that you struggle a lot! Eventually the instruments end up losing their sharp cutting edge. It is like cutting a rock, I kid you not. Tissues that should be smooth and silky are calcified and have the consistency of a rock or a bone. It has gotten worse over the years and there could be other factors involved as well (i.e. bacteria), but magnesium is one of those things that is absolutely essential -and usually it shines by its absence in most therapies!

Magnesium helps to dissolve calcium; it becomes more water soluble. So with foods artificially enriched with calcium, and the boom of calcium supplementation, there is never enough magnesium. Already in 1936 in the US Senate, there were discussions about dangerous diet deficiencies due to mineral depleted soils. Foods raised on millions of acres of land no longer contain enough of certain minerals, no matter how much of them you eat (and this was in the 1930's!). So usually there is always a constant deficiency in magnesium in most populations.

If you don't have enough magnesium to help keep calcium dissolved, you end up with calcium-excess spasms, calcification of arteries, calcium deposits, kidney stones, spasms of your blood vessels (which can lead to heart attacks and angina), migraine headaches, broncospasm (asthma), arrhythmias, etc. Magnesium deficiencies are also seen in depression and anxieties!

Magnesium is involved in over 325 enzymatic reactions in the body that regulate metabolism, energy production, electrical currents, etc. Even people who try to detoxify can't really do it if they're low in magnesium because it is involved in crucial enzymatic reactions that helps the body to detoxify. All chronic diseases involve inflammation and where there is inflammation you can be certain that there is a magnesium deficiency. Magnesium has also been used successfully as a pain reliever when used transdermally.

Calcium supplementation is not that bad as long as one takes enough magnesium supplementation and even magnesium baths along with it. I personally can attest to the great benefits of transdermal magnesium therapy (magnesium baths), it is the greatest relaxer mineral on earth.

A good book that puts things into perspective is The Magnesium Miracle by Carolyn Dean, MD, ND and Magnesium Medicine by Mark Sircus, AC, OMD.

The other interesting thing related to calcium and cow milk, is how it is recommended in diets in general. Drink your milk if you want to have strong bones... Never mind that high consuming cow milk (and its derivatives) countries have the highest rates of osteoporosis. Cow milk and its derivatives are the worst sources of calcium. If people think they're not getting enough calcium from their diets, then green veggies are the best sources to consider. Other good diet sources for calcium are sardines and salmon (rich in omega 3s as well), dark green vegetables such as broccoli, collard greens and bok choy, black-eyed peas, almonds (if there are no allergies to nuts).

In a detox and allergy testing diet, like the UltraSimple Diet by Mark Hyman, the first things that have to go is cow milk, eggs and gluten because they're usually the culprits of allergies. People with skin problems will find that milk is usually the culprit. Its important also to keep in mind the concept of "brain allergies" and how it is manifested as depression, anxiety, brain fog, etc. I highly discourage cow milk as there are too many sensitivities associated to to cow milk proteins and its nutritional benefits can be found in other foods. Some people become so sensitive to specific milk proteins that even episodes of acute pancreatitis have been reported. But if people think that they can tolerate cow milk, its best to go without it for some time while doing a detox/allergy testing diet and then re-introduce raw milk and see if there is a reaction to it, including brain fog, anxiety, moodiness. If there is a food allergy, there will be inflammation in the body, which will not allow for a proper detox. Some can re-introduce foods that they were previously allergic to after some desensitization, but this depends on each individual (blood type, etc) and their health problems.

Mercola wrote an article recently, putting the theme about calcium, milk and raw milk into perspective. He doesn't touches the subject of allergies to the milk proteins though.

The Milk Myth: What Your Body Really Needs

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/07/18/The-Milk-Myth-What-Your-Body-Really-Needs.aspx

A recent study claims that young adults are not drinking enough milk -- at least according to press reports on the matter. But according to the study’s lead author Nicole Larson, the focus on the study was on calcium.

The words "milk" and "calcium" are often used interchangeably in the popular press. But while milk is a calcium source, no standard other than that of the National Dairy Council considers it the best calcium source.

The suggestion that you need to drink three glasses of the secretion of a cow's mammary glands in order to be healthy is a bit outrageous and doesn't fit the human evolutionary profile. In fact, most humans around the world cannot easily digest cow milk.

Yogurt has more calcium than milk and is easier to digest. Collards and other greens also have about as much or more calcium than milk by the cup. Greens, unlike milk, have the added benefit of vitamin K, also necessary for strong bones. Sesame is also very high in calcium.

When you measure calcium by cup of food product, milk is high on the list. When you view it by calorie, though, milk is at the bottom. A hundred calories of turnip greens have over three times as much calcium as 100 calories of whole milk.

Sources:

Live Science June 24, 2009

Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior July/August 2009; 41(4):254-60


Dr. Mercola''s Comments Dr. Mercola's Comments:

The idea that you have to drink milk for strong bones is deeply ingrained – the result of very successful PR by the commercial dairy industry. But what most people do not realize is that pasteurized milk has little to do with strong bones, or good health, for that matter.

In fact, pasteurized milk has no important health benefits at all, and I do not recommend it to anyone.

As stated in the article above, calcium is the issue being investigated, not necessarily the consumption of (pasteurized) milk. The study in question found that during the transition to young adulthood, the daily intake of calcium decreased an average of 153 mg for high school girls, and 194 mg for boys.

Interestingly, time spent watching television was one factor associated with lower calcium intake, whereas an attitude toward a healthy lifestyle was cited as being associated with higher calcium intake. Which makes sense, regardless of the milk issue, since eating vegetables is one of the best ways to ensure you’re getting sufficient amounts of calcium, and is part and parcel of a healthy lifestyle.

The Vast Difference Between “Milk” and Raw Milk as a Source of Calcium

Whenever people talk about “milk” they automatically refer to pasteurized milk, which is the only variety you can find in every grocery store in the U.S. However, the drawbacks of drinking pasteurized milk are so many they overshadow any potential benefit from the calcium it contains.

And, in fact, there’s serious doubt about the calcium in pasteurized milk because one of the worst side effects of pasteurization is that it renders much of the calcium contained in raw milk insoluble… This can lead to rickets, bad teeth, and nervous troubles, for sufficient calcium content is vital to children. Additionally, with the loss of phosphorus also associated with calcium, bone and brain formation can suffer serious setbacks.

Pasteurization also destroys part of the vitamin C contained in raw milk, and encourages growth of harmful bacteria.

Worst of all, however, dairy products from cows treated with Monsanto‘s genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rBGH or rBST) could sharply increase your risk of cancer and other diseases, especially in children.

These detrimental side effects are not associated with drinking RAW milk, however.

In fact, raw milk is an excellent source of not only calcium but also a number of other nutrients such as vitamins, enzymes, and beneficial bacteria like lactobacillus acidophilus.

One other significant issue may actually be the species of cow that the milk is taken from. Milk from older cows, Jerseys, Asian and African cows may not cause problems, while milk from new cows like Holsteins, which has a mutation on one of the amino acids of casein, causes many people to not tolerate it well.

Do You Really Need Calcium for Strong Bones?

This long-held belief may not be as accurate as you’d like to think. Numerous studies have found NO association between high calcium intake and lower fracture risk. As is often the case, modern science may have picked apart and simplified the issue too much.

As Dr. Robert Thompson M.D. describes in his excellent book The Calcium Lie, your bone is composed of at least a dozen minerals, and if you focus exclusively on calcium supplementation you are likely going to worsen your bone density, and can actually increase your risk of osteoporosis.

Dr. Thompson believes that the overconsumption of calcium in the goal of preventing osteoporosis creates other mineral deficiencies and imbalances that will also increase your risk of:

* Heart disease
* Kidney stones
* Gallstones
* Osteoarthritis
* Hypothyroidism
* Obesity
* Type 2 diabetes

A Surprising Alternative to Calcium for Bone Health

Interestingly, he proposes that one of the best practical alternatives is the use of naturally occurring ionic mineral supplements. He believes that almost everyone needs trace minerals, not just calcium, because you simply cannot get all the nutrients you need through food grown in mineral depleted soils.

According to Dr. Thompson, unprocessed salts are one of the best sources of these ionic trace minerals that are so vital for strong bones (as well as numerous other biological functions).

I have long been a fan of high quality salt, and Himalayan salt is, I believe, one of the healthiest salts on the planet. It contains vitally important trace minerals that are very difficult to get in your food due to the challenges of modern agricultural practices.

The Healthy Bone Diet – Going Beyond Milk

Even if you don’t have access to raw milk or other raw dairy products, and have the good sense to avoid pasteurized milk, there are plenty of dietary options to ensure you’re getting enough calcium in your diet.

But first, it’s important to understand that processed foods will produce biochemical and metabolic conditions in your body that will decrease your bone density, so avoiding processed foods is the first step in the right direction.

Additionally, eating high quality, organic, biodynamic, locally-grown food will naturally increase your bone density and decrease your risk of developing osteoporosis.

Aside from that, specific foods that are high in calcium include:

* Fresh, dark-green vegetables like spinach, kale, turnips, and collard greens
* Dry beans
* Sesame seeds and almonds
* Wild salmon and sardines
* Rhubarb
* Okra

For a more comprehensive list of calcium-rich foods and the amounts of calcium per serving can be found on the International Osteoporosis Foundation’s web site.

Another food worthy of mention is onions. They’re high in gamma-glutamyl peptides that have also been shown to increase bone density.

Beware of Conventional Calcium Recommendations

Some conventionally trusted sources such as WebMD suggest eating fortified breads and cereals, soy beans, and fortified soy milk.

Please don’t…

Grains and soy have numerous health risks, which I’ve discussed in depth in many previous articles. But in addition to all the other negative health effects of grains, gluten has specifically been shown to decrease bone density, so eating lots of breads and cereals is not in your best interest despite being fortified with calcium.

Will a High Protein Diet Destroy Calcium?

There’s a common concern that eating a high protein diet will secrete calcium into your urine. But the truth of the matter is that more people are now eating low-protein diets, and your body needs protein, because amino acids are part of the bone matrix.

If you don’t consume enough of specific amino acids your body can’t form strong, dense bones. So you DO want to make sure you eat plenty of high quality protein like free-range eggs and grass-fed meats.

Additional Components Vital for Bone Density

Healthy fats -- Along with your basic food selections, your omega 3 intake and the ratio between omega 3 to omega 6 has a lot to do with building healthy bone. Unfortunately, even many nutritionists are unaware of the important relationship between healthy bones and optimal fat intake.

Most everyone needs to take a high quality, animal-based omega 3 fat as it is very deficient in most people’s diet. I recommend krill oil, as I believe it’s a superior source of omega 3’s.

And, to further balance out your omega 3 and omega 6 ratio, you’ll want to reduce the amount of processed vegetable oils you consume. Oils like corn oil, safflower- and soy oil are loaded with omega 6’s. I also recommend avoiding canola oil for other reasons.

Sunshine -- Vitamin D is also important for calcium absorption, so along with your raw milk and vegetables, make sure that you are getting plenty of safe sun exposure this summer. Getting your levels up to about 60 ng/ml will help you optimize your bone density.

Exercise -- You should also remember that, just as exercise and diet work in tandem to beat obesity, the same can be said for osteoporosis. Strengthening bone mass through weight-bearing exercise, especially during puberty, can build a good foundation that can last a lifetime. In fact, there is a stronger connection between exercise and improved bone density among teens than taking calcium!

This is because bone-building is a dynamic process, and by exerting force on your bones through exercise such as strength training, you stimulate new, healthy bone growth.



Related Links:

Everything You Thought You Knew About Calcium Supplementation Could Be Wrong

The Best Way to Get Enough Calcium

Don't Drink Your Milk!

 

[Gaby]

Its important also to keep in mind the concept of "brain allergies" and how it is manifested as depression, anxiety, brain fog, etc.

Another thing is that one is usually allergic to favorite foods. Yeah, that sounds unfair, but that is how it works, we're allergic to favorite foods. People often crave foods they are sensitive to, there is like an identification with it. Food allergies is also related with the leaky gut problem which is explained in the candida thread.

 

[JEEP]

CALCIUM (1,315 mg/kg): The most abundant mineral in the body, it is especially important to bone and dental health, but is also involved in neural transmissions to the muscles. Spirulina supplies about as much calcium, gram for gram, as milk.

I also read that walking wasn't adequate as a weight bearing exercise for the purpose of building bone - jumping is needed, skipping rope for sure, but maybe also regular skipping/jogging. FWIW.

When looking at the rice milk in the natural food store, there seemed to be ingredients that I thought were questionable. The only one I can remember now is xanthan gum, which I see is being included in the recommended recipes. Are there any other ingredients in rice milk that should be avoided?

 

[RedFox]

If the ingredients where questionable, it may be best to try and find an alternative?

Are there any other ingredients in rice milk that should be avoided?

I started with rice milk personally (with added calcium! eek).....what I found whilst scouring the net for information (especially for the anti candida diet) is that some rice milk contains hidden syrup/sugar (and I wondered why I liked the stuff so much).

Personally I use oat milk now, and am hoping to eventually make my own rather than buy it. The improvement in my health from cows milk on my cereal has been quite noticeable, yet like you I seemed to have 'no problems' other than brain fog and a general fatigue which I attributed to my depression.....now I find it funny that all of this could have led to the depression in the first place!
It can be quite a hard thing to change any part of your diet, so just remember to take it one step at a time.

If you can only get that rice milk (with the questionable ingredients) try it for a while, but not as a permanent thing. Search out other alternative milks whilst trying it. :)

Another thing is that one is usually allergic to favorite foods. Yeah, that sounds unfair, but that is how it works, we're allergic to favorite foods. People often crave foods they are sensitive to, there is like an identification with it. Food allergies is also related with the leaky gut problem which is explained in the candida thread.

This can be the worst part! I still crave cheese, chocolate and sugar sometimes....the cravings go away as you deal with the underlying causes.

 

[JEEP]

Thank you RedFox for your reply. I was all set to buy the rice milk until I looked at the ingredients and wasn't sure if they were OK or not. Xanthan gum was the only one I could remember (brain fog indeed), so I put it back on the shelf. This morning I had two eggs over easy cooked in butter. I had been eating two boiled eggs for lunch, so I guess I'm going to have to think of something else to eat for that meal. This is my first serious attempt to change my diet and the learning curve is substantial. I chose to make eggs instead of eating my fave cereal after once more looking at its ingredients -high fructose corn syrup and soybean oil among the bad boys. My husband bought several bottles of store-brand fish oil - it contains soy! I just reread the soy is dangerous thread and could not bring myself to ingest either of these products this morning. I'd like to find the krill oil as suggested on Mercola.com, but will check for soy or any other unacceptable ingredients before purchasing.

This can be the worst part! I still crave cheese, chocolate and sugar sometimes....the cravings go away as you deal with the underlying causes.

I used to live ten minutes from Hershey, PA, way after three mile island. Besides the quantity of milk that goes into their chocolate, how much radioactivity was also a part (still?) of their confections. And I so love chocolate! I managed to stop eating most other candy due to their high fructose corn syrup, but chocolate wasn't too bad - if you don't count that soy lecithin. I definitely threw up a mental block on that one! Life without chocolate or ice cream? Some hard choices to be made!

 

[JEEP]

I just looked at the ingredients on a can of Starkist solid white albacore tuna - "contains fish, soybeans". This is unreal! I'm gonna check to see if I have all the necessary ingredients for the buckwheat crepes. I hope so!

 

[JEEP]

I've received this email response from the Weston A. Price Foundation:

We haven't reviewed this in detail so I can't give you anything definitive
but one of our board members (Dr. Tom Cowan) wrote the introduction to the
book, so I'm inclined to think there is something to it. Not everyone will
have problems with A1 milk but there is evidence that A2 is better.

Tim Boyd, Member Services
Weston A Price Foundation
www.westonaprice.org; info@westonaprice.org
phone 202.363.4394 fax 202.363.4396

The referenced book is The Devil in the Milk by Dr. Kevin Woodford as mentioned in the Sott.net article.

From the Weston A. Price Foundation website:

USDA, FDA and STATE AG AGENCIES PLEASE NOTE: Raw milk is Nature’s perfect food and is extremely important for the developing brains and nervous systems of infants and children. Furthermore, in many children not fortunate enough to have started life on raw milk, raw milk given later in childhood has cured autism, behavior problems, frequent infections, deafness, asthma and allergies and other serious health conditions. Please bear in mind that any move you make to stop or hinder a raw dairy operation will actually HARM, not help the infants and children who rely on that milk, and may make it difficult for all children to obtain this milk in the future--including your own children and grandchildren. An interruption in supply can be VERY detrimental to a growing infant or sick child who has no other options. Read for yourself at http://www.realmilk.com/appeal-jun06-testimonials.html. If you are concerned about safety, rest assured. In the farm-to-consumer distribution model, the farmer receives timely and relevant feedback directly from the customers, something that farmers selling bulk milk never receive. Raw milk is actually the safest food around with so much consumer oversight and also with an extremely efficient built-in anti-pathogen mechanism! If you are concerned about rules, then consider investing the same amount of time you’d spend persecuting a raw milk farmer into advocating for supportive raw milk legislation.

Well, those are some pretty sensational claims and I guess the only evidence they have to back them up are the testimonials. Of course, our governmental agencies are A-OK with soy milk being fed to children and infants and we definitely know how damaging that is! Breastfeeding is the best source of infant nutrition, but not everyone has that option. Perhaps wet nurses need to make a comeback. Plus, its hardly practical to give growing children breast milk. Is there any data regarding rice, oat, or other types of milk as a staple for growing children?

 

[JEEP]

USDA, FDA and STATE AG AGENCIES PLEASE NOTE: Raw milk is Nature’s perfect food and is extremely important for the developing brains and nervous systems of infants and children. Furthermore, in many children not fortunate enough to have started life on raw milk, raw milk given later in childhood has cured autism, behavior problems, frequent infections, deafness, asthma and allergies and other serious health conditions. Please bear in mind that any move you make to stop or hinder a raw dairy operation will actually HARM, not help the infants and children who rely on that milk, and may make it difficult for all children to obtain this milk in the future--including your own children and grandchildren. An interruption in supply can be VERY detrimental to a growing infant or sick child who has no other options. Read for yourself at http://www.realmilk.com/appeal-jun06-testimonials.html. If you are concerned about safety, rest assured. In the farm-to-consumer distribution model, the farmer receives timely and relevant feedback directly from the customers, something that farmers selling bulk milk never receive. Raw milk is actually the safest food around with so much consumer oversight and also with an extremely efficient built-in anti-pathogen mechanism! If you are concerned about rules, then consider investing the same amount of time you’d spend persecuting a raw milk farmer into advocating for supportive raw milk legislation.

In a follow up email regarding the above mentioned health claims, I asked if there was any verifiable, scientific data other than testimonials. The reply:

There are a lot of testimonials but at least the asthma and allergy claims are backed up by studies published in Lancet (Lancet 353:1485, 1999).

Tim Boyd, Member Services
Weston A Price Foundation
www.westonaprice.org; info@westonaprice.org
phone 202.363.4394 fax 202.363.4396

FWIW

 

[Vulcan59]

Hi JEEP,

There are a lot of testimonials but at least the asthma and allergy claims are backed up by studies published in Lancet (Lancet 353:1485, 1999).

Tim Boyd, Member Services
Weston A Price Foundation
www.westonaprice.org; info@westonaprice.org
phone 202.363.4394 fax 202.363.4396

I tried looking for the above article but perhaps I am doing it wrongly. I went to the Lancet webiste and keyed in the relevant volume, (353) year (1999) and page (1485) the results have nothing to do with raw milk. The article itself is titled "Atopy in children of families with an anthroposophic lifestyle" and it's about antibiotics and vaccination. I tried searching without stating the page number and still couldn't find the citation by Weston A Price. Am I missing something??

 

[JEEP]

I have no idea. I pasted exactly what was written in the reply. Doesn't look good that the reference doesn't pan out. I think I will pose the question to Mr. Jonsson later in August when he finishes the course he is taking now. He seems to be on the up and up. For now, a wait and see.

 

[Gawan]

Hi Psyche,

is there any chance as a -cardiac surgeon- to change the therapy for the patients, that means to go for more magnesium? Or is it something, unfortunately, hopeless to try, because of colleagues (not open minded etc.), the medicine-system you are working in, that something that simple and cheap seems ridiculous?


Anyway, thanks for sharing your experiences!

 

[Gaby]

is there any chance as a -cardiac surgeon- to change the therapy for the patients, that means to go for more magnesium? Or is it something, unfortunately, hopeless to try, because of colleagues (not open minded etc.), the medicine-system you are working in, that something that simple and cheap seems ridiculous?

People come to heart surgery as the last option, usually in emergency conditions when there is a life threatening experience and after that, they go back to their health care providers. When a valve is hard as a rock and there is unavoidable indication of surgery, you know that too much time has passed. The changes must have been done years before by the person or by the health care provider. I gave articles about these therapies to colleagues, but Big Pharma is a great obstacle for a broader awareness.

For example, key subjects like nutrition, environmental medicine and psychology are not covered in medical schools. Big Pharma has a huge role in the medical education and system, so it is not surprising that cheap and useful therapies are not considered. Carolyn Dean touches this subject in her book, The Magnesium Miracle. Another good one is "The Truth about the Drug Companies" by Marcia Angell. It is pretty sad...