Animal protein & bone density

[Paul Chefu]

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/431555?srcmp=endo-041202

Animal Protein Consumption Associated With Bone Density in
Elderly Women

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) Apr 10 - Dietary animal protein
appears to play a protective role in the skeletal health of
older women, according to a report in the April 1st issue of
the American Journal of Epidemiology. In a prospective study,
Dr. Elizabeth Barrett-Connor, of the University of California,
San Diego, in La Jolla, California, and colleagues examined
the associations of total, animal, and vegetable protein with
bone mineral density (BMD) and bone loss in 572 women and 388
men between the ages of 55 and 92 years.

"Multiple linear regression analyses adjusted for standard
osteoporosis covariates showed a positive association between
animal protein consumption, assessed by food frequency
questionnaires in 1988-1992, and BMD, measured 4 years later,"
the investigators report.

The association was significant in women. For them, BMD
increased by 0.016
g/cm at the hip (p = 0.005) for every 15-g/day increase in
animal protein intake. BMD was also increased at the femoral
neck, spine, and total body by 0.012 g/cm (p = 0.02), 0.015
g/cm (p = 0.08), and 0.010 g/cm (p = 0.04), respectively.

Vegetable protein was negatively associated with BMD in both
men and women.

"These findings, along with the intriguing observation of a
negative association between vegetable protein consumption and
BMD, have significant implications for osteoporosis prevention
strategies and warrant further investigation in elderly
cohorts," Dr. Barrett-Connor and colleagues conclude.

Am J Epidemiol 2002;155:636-644.

[Jay Tanzma]

Paul Chefurka wrote:
>
> http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/431555?srcmp=endo-041202
>
> Animal Protein Consumption Associated With Bone Density in
> Elderly Women
>
> NEW YORK (Reuters Health) Apr 10 - Dietary animal protein
> appears to play a protective role in the skeletal health of
> older women, according to a report in the April 1st issue of
> the American Journal of Epidemiology.

Overall, the literature on the relation between dietary
protein and bone health is mixed. Different studies of similar
quality support protective, detrimental, and null relations.
The reasons for the discrepancies are not well understood, but
a study in the current issue of the American Journal of
Clinical Nutrition, suggests that the effect on bone of
protein in the diet may differ depending on the level of
calcium in the diet (1). Specifically, at high calcium
intakes, protein may be protective; whereas at low calcium
intakes, it may be detrimental.

In an accompanying editorial (2), Robert Heaney proposes a
mechanism that could account for how protein could affect bone
differently depending on calcium intake, as observed in the
study. Since bone is 50% protein, higher protein intakes
should promote bone accretion. However, higher protein intakes
also cause increased calcium losses in the urine. The body
responds to this calcium drain by drawing from its calcium
stores in bone, potentially causing bone demineralization, and
by increasing calcium absorption from the gut. The fraction of
calcium that the body absorbs is partly dependent on the
amount of calcium in the diet. At high calcium intakes the
fraction is low; whereas at low intakes, the faction is
higher. If calcium intake is high (such that fractional
absorption is low), then the body will up-regulate absorption
sufficiently, net bone demineralization will not occur, and
higher protein intakes will promote bone accretion. In
contrast, if calcium intake is low, then absorption is already
fully up-regulated, and the body cannot further increase
absorption to offset the calcium drain. Thus, when intake of
calcium is low, higher protein intakes cause net bone
demineralization.

-Jay

[Seeker Of]

Paul Chefurka <paul@chefurka.com> wrote in message
news:<n9fubu0i5209orb94rlna6h53ld53g8ibh@4ax.com>...

There was an article in New Scientist recently about a guy
who was showing that high "acid" diets were bone corrosive.
His study typically showed that consumption of more acid
foods negatively affects bone, but curiously another showed
positive. They were explaining the difference in that
people who eat very low protein diets are also susceptible
to bone loss.

He rated parmesan cheese as the absolute worst acid food. Milk
wasn't so bad.

Surprisingly, another way to keep your bone mass is to eat
carbonates.

> http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/431555?srcmp=endo-041202
>
> Animal Protein Consumption Associated With Bone Density in
> Elderly Women
>
> NEW YORK (Reuters Health) Apr 10 - Dietary animal protein
> appears to play a protective role in the skeletal health
> of older women, according to a report in the April 1st
> issue of the American Journal of Epidemiology. In a
> prospective study, Dr. Elizabeth Barrett-Connor, of the
> University of California, San Diego, in La Jolla,
> California, and colleagues examined the associations of
> total, animal, and vegetable protein with bone mineral
> density (BMD) and bone loss in 572 women and 388 men
> between the ages of 55 and 92 years.
>
> "Multiple linear regression analyses adjusted for standard
> osteoporosis covariates showed a positive association
> between animal protein consumption, assessed by food
> frequency questionnaires in 1988-1992, and BMD, measured 4
> years later," the investigators report.
>
> The association was significant in women. For them, BMD
> increased by 0.016
> g/cm at the hip (p = 0.005) for every 15-g/day increase in
> animal protein intake. BMD was also increased at the
> femoral neck, spine, and total body by 0.012 g/cm (p =
> 0.02), 0.015 g/cm (p = 0.08), and 0.010 g/cm (p = 0.04),
> respectively.
>
> Vegetable protein was negatively associated with BMD in both
> men and women.
>
> "These findings, along with the intriguing observation of a
> negative association between vegetable protein consumption
> and BMD, have significant implications for osteoporosis
> prevention strategies and warrant further investigation in
> elderly cohorts," Dr. Barrett-Connor and colleagues
> conclude.
>
> Am J Epidemiol 2002;155:636-644.

[Michael Ro]

On Thu, 18 Apr 2002 22:26:31 GMT, Paul Chefurka
<paul@chefurka.com> wrote:

|The association was significant in women. For them, BMD
increased by 0.016 |g/cm at the hip (p = 0.005) for every
15-g/day increase in animal protein |intake.

I have a different solution.

Eat vegetables and squat with weight.

[Wuzzy]

Curiously, Lettuce eating is associated with higher bone
density! (due to vitamin K)
--------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Am J Clin Nutr 1999 Jan;69(1):74-9 Vitamin K intake and hip
fractures in women: a prospective study.

Risk of hip fracture was also inversely associated with
lettuce consumption (RR: 0.55; 95% CI: 0.40, 0.78) for one or
more servings per day compared with one or fewer servings per
week), the food that contributed the most to dietary vitamin
K intakes.

[Jay Tanzma]

I omitted the references from my post. Here they are:

References:
1. Dawson-Hughes B, Harris SS. Calcium intake influences the
association of protien intake with rates of bone loss in
elderly men and women. Am J Clin Nutr 2002;75:773-9.
2. Heaney RP. Protein and calcium: antagonists or synergists?
Am J Clin Nutr 2002;75:609-10.

[Paul Chefu]

On Thu, 18 Apr 2002 16:15:23 -0700, Jay Tanzman
<jtanzman@sph.llu.edu> wrote:

>
>
>Paul Chefurka wrote:
>>
>> http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/431555?srcmp=endo-
>> -041202
>>
>> Animal Protein Consumption Associated With Bone Density in
>> Elderly Women
>>
>> NEW YORK (Reuters Health) Apr 10 - Dietary animal protein
>> appears to play a protective role in the skeletal health of
>> older women, according to a report in the April 1st issue
>> of the American Journal of Epidemiology.
>
>Overall, the literature on the relation between dietary
>protein and bone health is mixed. Different studies of
>similar quality support protective, detrimental, and null
>relations. The reasons for the discrepancies are not well
>understood, but a study in the current issue of the American
>Journal of Clinical Nutrition, suggests that the effect on
>bone of protein in the diet may differ depending on the level
>of calcium in the diet (1). Specifically, at high calcium
>intakes, protein may be protective; whereas at low calcium
>intakes, it may be detrimental.
>
>In an accompanying editorial (2), Robert Heaney proposes a
>mechanism that could account for how protein could affect
>bone differently depending on calcium intake, as observed in
>the study. Since bone is 50% protein, higher protein intakes
>should promote bone accretion. However, higher protein
>intakes also cause increased calcium losses in the urine. The
>body responds to this calcium drain by drawing from its
>calcium stores in bone, potentially causing bone
>demineralization, and by increasing calcium absorption from
>the gut. The fraction of calcium that the body absorbs is
>partly dependent on the amount of calcium in the diet. At
>high calcium intakes the fraction is low; whereas at low
>intakes, the faction is higher. If calcium intake is high
>(such that fractional absorption is low), then the body will
>up-regulate absorption sufficiently, net bone
>demineralization will not occur, and higher protein intakes
>will promote bone accretion. In contrast, if calcium intake
>is low, then absorption is already fully up-regulated, and
>the body cannot further increase absorption to offset the
>calcium drain. Thus, when intake of calcium is low, higher
>protein intakes cause net bone demineralization.
>
>-Jay

Thanks, Jay - that makes perfect sense. So I guess low-fat
milk is the answer, just like mom always said?

Paul

[Paul Chefu]

On Fri, 19 Apr 2002 09:48:59 -0400, Michael Roose
<somewhatusfultrainer@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 18 Apr 2002 22:26:31 GMT, Paul Chefurka
><paul@chefurka.com> wrote:
>
>|The association was significant in women. For them, BMD
>increased by 0.016 |g/cm at the hip (p = 0.005) for every
>15-g/day increase in animal protein |intake.
>
>I have a different solution.
>
>Eat vegetables and squat with weight.

You'll have an easier time convincing 75-yo women to eat steak
than squat with weight.

[Michael Ro]

On 20 Apr 2002 15:43:48 -0700, mypcos@hotmail.com
(wuzzy) wrote:

|Curiously, Lettuce eating is associated with higher
bone density!

Then why are there so many rabbits with missing feet?

[Jay Tanzma]

Paul Chefurka wrote:
>
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2002 16:15:23 -0700, Jay Tanzman
> <jtanzman@sph.llu.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Paul Chefurka wrote:
> >>
> >> http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/431555?srcmp=endo-0-
> >> 41202
> >>
> >> Animal Protein Consumption Associated With Bone Density
> >> in Elderly Women
> >>
> >> NEW YORK (Reuters Health) Apr 10 - Dietary animal protein
> >> appears to play a protective role in the skeletal health
> >> of older women, according to a report in the April 1st
> >> issue of the American Journal of Epidemiology.
> >
> >Overall, the literature on the relation between dietary
> >protein and bone health is mixed. Different studies of
> >similar quality support protective, detrimental, and null
> >relations. The reasons for the discrepancies are not well
> >understood, but a study in the current issue of the
> >American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, suggests that the
> >effect on bone of protein in the diet may differ depending
> >on the level of calcium in the diet (1). Specifically, at
> >high calcium intakes, protein may be protective; whereas at
> >low calcium intakes, it may be detrimental.
> >
> >In an accompanying editorial (2), Robert Heaney proposes a
> >mechanism that could account for how protein could affect
> >bone differently depending on calcium intake, as observed
> >in the study. Since bone is 50% protein, higher protein
> >intakes should promote bone accretion. However, higher
> >protein intakes also cause increased calcium losses in the
> >urine. The body responds to this calcium drain by drawing
> >from its calcium stores in bone, potentially causing bone
> >demineralization, and by increasing calcium absorption from
> >the gut. The fraction of calcium that the body absorbs is
> >partly dependent on the amount of calcium in the diet. At
> >high calcium intakes the fraction is low; whereas at low
> >intakes, the faction is higher. If calcium intake is high
> >(such that fractional absorption is low), then the body
> >will up-regulate absorption sufficiently, net bone
> >demineralization will not occur, and higher protein intakes
> >will promote bone accretion. In contrast, if calcium intake
> >is low, then absorption is already fully up-regulated, and
> >the body cannot further increase absorption to offset the
> >calcium drain. Thus, when intake of calcium is low, higher
> >protein intakes cause net bone demineralization.
> >
> >-Jay
>
> Thanks, Jay - that makes perfect sense. So I guess low-fat
> milk is the answer, just like mom always said?

I worry about the paleos, who eschew dairy but have
high-meat diets.

-Jay

[Gym Bob]

Yep! Separated, homogenized, pasteurized, fortified,
colorized, skimmed, enhanced, natural milk!

"Paul Chefurka" <paul@chefurka.com> wrote in message
news:l7oubuo58f2l4vfmgi1o7hpgr942i5j1h7@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2002 16:15:23 -0700, Jay Tanzman
> <jtanzman@sph.llu.edu> wrote:
>
> Thanks, Jay - that makes perfect sense. So I guess low-fat
> milk is the answer, just like mom always said?
>
> Paul

[Michael Ro]

On Fri, 19 Apr 2002 13:59:42 GMT, Paul Chefurka
<paul@chefurka.com> wrote:

|>I have a different solution.
|>
|>Eat vegetables and squat with weight.
|
|You'll have an easier time convincing 75-yo women to eat
steak than squat |with weight.

What, fat 75 year olds don't go potty? :(

[Gym Bob]

Sounds like a ruse to me!

"Michael Roose" <somewhatusfultrainer@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:tkt3cusdvakg0tohhjm4ebkf1odtvceqg3@4ax.com...
> On 20 Apr 2002 15:43:48 -0700, mypcos@hotmail.com
> (wuzzy) wrote:
>
> |Curiously, Lettuce eating is associated with higher bone
> density!
>
> Then why are there so many rabbits with missing feet?

[Paul Chefu]

On Thu, 18 Apr 2002 17:25:07 -0700, Jay Tanzman
<jtanzman@sph.llu.edu> wrote:

>Paul Chefurka wrote:

>> Thanks, Jay - that makes perfect sense. So I guess low-fat
>> milk is the answer, just like mom always said?
>
>I worry about the paleos, who eschew dairy but have
>high-meat diets.

That's OK, Steve Harris has it covered - he worries about the
meat-eaters who drink milk too :-)

Paul

[Paul Chefu]

On Thu, 18 Apr 2002 20:49:10 -0400, "Gym Bob"
<noney@spam.com> wrote:

>Yep! Separated, homogenized, pasteurized, fortified,
>colorized, skimmed, enhanced, natural milk!

Gee, you say that like it's a BAD thing :-)

[Hua Kul]

"Gym Bob" <noney@spam.com> wrote in message
news:<xQJv8.26153$LX4.116003912@radon.golden.net>...
> Yep! Separated, homogenized, pasteurized, fortified,
> colorized, skimmed, enhanced, natural milk!
>
> "Paul Chefurka" <paul@chefurka.com> wrote in message
> news:l7oubuo58f2l4vfmgi1o7hpgr942i5j1h7@4ax.com...
> > On Thu, 18 Apr 2002 16:15:23 -0700, Jay Tanzman
> > <jtanzman@sph.llu.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks, Jay - that makes perfect sense. So I guess low-fat
> > milk is the answer, just like mom always said?
> >
> > Paul

Acting on their belief that the only good milk for humans is
mothers milk, and pursuing their mission statement, the
Yellowsprings United Mothers Milk Institute in Yellowsprings,
Ohio is taking applications for wet nurses. Their fee-based
clinic will strive to provide a daily dose of that magnificent
high-fat (54%) food. No prescription will be needed, and they
will have a drive-up window. Nurses will be paid per ounce,
and tips will be tax deductible. YUMMI is hoping to open a
chain of these clinics nationwide.

--Hua Kul

[Steve Harr]

"Paul Chefurka" <paul@chefurka.com> wrote in message
news:51pubu0vg2p6re99ljuvjkpfkqiiumo49l@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2002 17:25:07 -0700, Jay Tanzman
> <jtanzman@sph.llu.edu> wrote:
>
> >Paul Chefurka wrote:
>
> >> Thanks, Jay - that makes perfect sense. So I guess
> >> low-fat milk is the answer, just like mom always said?
> >
> >I worry about the paleos, who eschew dairy but have
> >high-meat diets.
>
> That's OK, Steve Harris has it covered - he worries about
> the meat-eaters who drink milk too :-)
>
> Paul

Only due to the fat issue. Nonfat milk's an excellent source
of calcium, and has been shown to more than make for its
protein load in that regard. Non-fish meats should be
moderated because of their crumby sat-fat content. Whether you
can take in enough protein from nuts, fish, and science
fiction proteinoid foods to harm your calcium balance in the
absense of much red meat and poultry intake is an open
question. I wish more people tried <g>. I WISH this was a big
medical problem...

If you worry about it, there's CitraCal D, a fine supplement.
Take one with every protein shake or non-fat cream cheese
sandwich, and relax.

SBH

--
I welcome Email from strangers with the minimal cleverness to
fix my address (it's an open-book test). I strongly recommend
recipients of unsolicited bulk Email ad spam use
"http://combat.uxn.com" to get the true corporate name of the
last ISP address on the viewsource header, then forward
message & headers to "abuse@[offendingISP]."

[Paul Chefu]

On Thu, 18 Apr 2002 19:02:37 -0600, "Steve Harris"
<sbharris@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote:

>If you worry about it, there's CitraCal D, a fine supplement.
>Take one with every protein shake or non-fat cream cheese
>sandwich, and relax.

How about a sprinkle of calcium chloride on my steaks? Just
kidding...

Paul