Guest guest Posted June 27, 2006 Report Share Posted June 27, 2006 Agree about the calcium issue. You know those blocked arteries w plaque, & causing strokes TIA's, high BP etc..? from what I've read are more calcium based (and LpA) than the cholesterol we're all told is the bad guy. Some day I think the cholesterol 'myth' will be exposed as another big pharma product (Statins) looking for a disease and wouldn't doubt major lawsuits as in Vioxx with some of those side effects. let alone how those inhibit our CoQ10 , memory loss, nerve damage, severe leg cramps, etc. etc. Fox news back in March of '04 (I think) had a segment titled 'Excess Calcium in blood causes heart & bone disease' and 1996, the American Heart Association (AHA) issued a “Scientific Statement” to health professionals acknowledging the strong link between heart attacks and high calcium scores. I know how everyone is told to take that extra calcium for our bones but I've read that what that does is just increase it in the blood stream and may even draw it 'out' of the bones. Who knows? I just know it's one thing that I don't add, but that's just me, not telling anyone else yay or nay, like you said, I'd be sure I needed it before adding it. Believe me just my $.02 cents worth and rambling. Dee~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 27, 2006 Report Share Posted June 27, 2006 The problem with calcium has to do with BALANCE - particularly balance with magnesium, but also with vitamin D. Vitamin d is not watersoluable (A,D, E & K arent') and you can get too much of it. Too much will actually inhibit the use of the calcium in your blood. Sun gives you vitamin D your body can store and use later, safely. Supplements can give you too much, and it isn't as accessible later as the D from sun. So, if you drink milk with D and take a multivitmin, if you take OTHER calcium supplements get them without D. Someone just posted an article about magnesium and pain - it seems to play a role in relief. But you need magnesium in proportion to calcium or the calcium is not properly absorbed. I think it is 2 calcium to 1 magnesium. When choosing supplements (I have osteopenia) I get WITH D in the windter and without in the summer. I prefer calcium citrate because I read it is more absorbable, but the only straight calcium (no D) with magnesium I've found is calcium carbonate, so i take that sometimes. What you are striving for is an even level of calcium in your blood so your blood doesn't rob your bones of it - absorption/reabsorption process - and you can oly absorb so much calcium at a time, so it makes no sense to take it all at once. Spread it out. Keep track of whether it is in other foods and drinks (milk, OJ) and roughly shoot for just a little over the RDA if you have bone concerns. --- DeeTroll wrote: > Agree about the calcium issue. > > You know those blocked arteries w plaque, & causing > strokes TIA's, high BP etc..? from what I've read > are more calcium based (and LpA) than the > cholesterol we're all told is the bad guy. Some day > I think the cholesterol 'myth' will be exposed as > another big pharma product (Statins) looking for a > disease and wouldn't doubt major lawsuits as in > Vioxx with some of those side effects. let alone > how those inhibit our CoQ10 , memory loss, nerve > damage, severe leg cramps, etc. etc. > > Fox news back in March of '04 (I think) had a > segment titled 'Excess Calcium in blood causes heart > & bone disease' and 1996, the American Heart > Association (AHA) issued a " Scientific Statement " to > health professionals acknowledging the strong link > between heart attacks and high calcium scores. > > I know how everyone is told to take that extra > calcium for our bones but I've read that what that > does is just increase it in the blood stream and may > even draw it 'out' of the bones. Who knows? I > just know it's one thing that I don't add, but > that's just me, not telling anyone else yay or nay, > like you said, I'd be sure I needed it before adding > it. Believe me just my $.02 cents worth and > rambling. > > Dee~ __________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 28, 2006 Report Share Posted June 28, 2006 Yes, Kathy I was thinking the same thing. I take about 2400 mg a day to combat oxalates! It is exhausting trying to figure all of this stuff out all the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 28, 2006 Report Share Posted June 28, 2006 okay to take that much, but be sure you factor in the calcium in your food/diet and don't take the full 1500 in supplements alone- and that you get enough magnesium in a ratio of about 2:1 (I think) to balance it properly! --- kbrbon wrote: > I might be totally missing something here, but don't > many of us take about 1500mg of Calcium Citrate for > vulvodynia to offset the oxalate chemical in foods? > Maybe I'm not even looking for a response b/c it > seems we can't win either way. Kathy > > > > > **IF REPLYING TO THIS POST, PLEASE REMOVE ORIGINAL > POST, THANKS** > > Our HOME page is > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/VulvarDisorders > to search our archives, files, articles, etc. > > *** Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 28, 2006 Report Share Posted June 28, 2006 2,400 is unnecessary. Your body can't use it appropriately. --- susan wrote: > Yes, Kathy I was thinking the same thing. I take > about 2400 mg a day to combat oxalates! It is > exhausting trying to figure all of this stuff out > all the time. > > > __________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 28, 2006 Report Share Posted June 28, 2006 How much should I use to combat oxalates? Re: Too much calcium 2,400 is unnecessary. Your body can't use itappropriately.--- susan <peacefulmeow@ yahoo.com> wrote:> Yes, Kathy I was thinking the same thing. I take> about 2400 mg a day to combat oxalates! It is> exhausting trying to figure all of this stuff out> all the time.> > > ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ __ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 28, 2006 Report Share Posted June 28, 2006 I don't know about what is needed for oxalates. i just know your body can't use that much calcium and it can indeed inhibit the reabsorption of calcium into your bones. The bones are continually breaking down and building up (osteoblats and osteoclats). When the blood is short on calcium, it takes it from teh breakdown process, robbing the bones. When the bones need calcium for rebuilding, they count on a steady amount in the blood. --- susan wrote: > How much should I use to combat oxalates? > > > > > Re: Too much calcium > > > 2,400 is unnecessary. Your body can't use it > appropriately. > > --- susan <peacefulmeow@ yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Yes, Kathy I was thinking the same thing. I take > > about 2400 mg a day to combat oxalates! It is > > exhausting trying to figure all of this stuff out > > all the time. > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ > __ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 28, 2006 Report Share Posted June 28, 2006 I watch my oxalates and don't eat foods every day which contain them. When I first started the low-oxalate diet I completely cut them out but discovered that if I don't eat them every day I do not have problems. I have never taken the calcium regularly but have been very haphazard about using it. My pain is practically gone and comes back from time to time but never as bad as it was in the beginning. When my pain comes it never lasts very long at this point so I think I was just eating too much oxalate containing foods at the time I was so miserable. Ora On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 18:02:07 -0700 (PDT), susan wrote: >How much should I use to combat oxalates? > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 28, 2006 Report Share Posted June 28, 2006 Just a quick thought...... The oxalate theory or diet is basically touted by one mans theory and overall the medical community says it's unproven so for what that's worth. I know there are some women who swear by it so I'm not saying it might not work or help but is it for everyone? I've not seen that many improve for long myself (tho I have a few) Those oxalates 'may' be just like salt.. pour it on an open wound and it'll burn like the dickens, (so will urine if we eat spicy foods or foods we're sensitive to) but if the skin gets healthy it's not what's going over it (as the oxalates in urine) tho it may irritate it if it the skin is in bad condition but it's the condition of the skin in the first place is what 'I' would think. So just a thought. I agree with what McTwirly says (sorry I can't remember your first name as you didn't sign off) but I agree with what she's speaking about with the bones and osteoblasts (Bone building) & osteoclasts (the cells that resorb bone) and the excess calcium drawing 'from' the bones to the blood stream. If one doesn't need it. And by the way as a side note..... 'estradiol' deficiency causes bone loss by lowering thiol antioxidants in osteoclasts and in fact both E & T are important for maintaining bone formation. Estrogen also works with the parathyroid glands to keep the calcium levels in balance. The drop in estrogen levels at menopause is one of the reasons why women begin to develop osteoporosis. To read more about E & bones click here http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/printerfriendlynews.php?newsid=15574 For some reason, estrogen 'deficiency' results in the production of more osteoclasts (cells that absorb bone which we don't want) and why E. is so important as just 'one' of it's many benefits. DHEA well known too to help bone stimulation & rebuilding. Just rambling, Dee~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 28, 2006 Report Share Posted June 28, 2006 I know that the Vulvar Pain Foundation, the ones who have researched the oxalate theory, make it very clear that any calcium citrate that is taken should NOT include vitamin d. Vitamin d is what allows the calcium to be absorbed, and, from what I understand, it's the citrate that helps (if it helps), not the calcium. I've not tried any of their recommendations so far, but they have documented thousands and thousands of recoveries based on their approach. Just some thoughts. > > > > > Yes, Kathy I was thinking the same thing. I take > > > about 2400 mg a day to combat oxalates! It is > > > exhausting trying to figure all of this stuff out > > > all the time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ > > __ > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 28, 2006 Report Share Posted June 28, 2006 Thanks, Dee! I agree that perhaps the oxalates are just irritating our sensitive tissues, and that if our tissues were healthy, we wouldn't be bothered by them. The cal citrate has definitely made a difference for me in terms of pain, but I will cut back on the amount based on everyone's feedback! Thank you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 28, 2006 Report Share Posted June 28, 2006 Yes, the vitamin D interferes. I tried it both ways and it does make a big difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.