Story by: Jesse Moreton, BSc DC

By now many of you have heard of this alliterated dilemma. If you have not, let me fill you in quickly.

During the past few months there have been studies published by reputable journals, including papers in the British Medical Journal and Journal of the American Medical Association. The researchers submitting the articles are also reputable and include members of the National Institute of Health.

Their findings indict calcium supplementation as increasing cardiovascular problems such as heart attacks. One review of 135 studies simply stated there was little evidence that calcium and vitamin D supplementation prevented fractures in healthy women.

Obviously this challenges our traditional understanding. Looking back, it’s not surprising that we eventually found out smoking was bad, but this is something else.

After a patient asked for my own two cents on the topic, I thought I had better do a little digging. I found myself reading articles on PubMed, an online database of biological science papers. I was surprised to find an article published in 1989 in the Journal of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners expressing doubt that supplementation beyond 800 milligrams per day would produce any benefit. This was 1989! Apparently this isn’t a new controversy.

I then thought of my experience as a chiropractic student. We had two instructors for our nutrition classes. One owned his own supplement line. The other was a retired university professor. If you attended their lectures you wouldn’t need to be told who was who.

The entrepreneur pushed his pills and hailed supplementation as the solution to life’s problems. The academic would frequently and humbly repeat, “Take it in the diet.”

Why? Because nutrients are better absorbed and used when they are taken in the diet. It appears the studies are indirectly suggesting the same thing. Duly note the studies only cite supplemental calcium as producing risks or lacking benefit.

So take it in the diet: milk; cheese; yogurt; and, other dairy products.

Wait a minute. What about the Chinese? They don’t eat much dairy and yet have a low incidence of osteoporosis.

To confirm my thought process I found an article in the Journal of Osteoporosis published in 2010. Sure enough, the paper reported hip fracture rates for women were five times less in China than in the United States. Another conundrum. (Or for those who saw the last Footlighters production; another corn drum.)

I remembered reading a book a friend lent me during school called The China Study. Authored by T. Colin Campbell (researcher) and his son, Thomas M. Campbell II (physician), it broke down and analysed the results from one of the largest epidemiological studies to date.

The China Study followed people from 65 different counties over 30 years and compared their diets to mortality rates and causes. Among more significant insights, Campbell and Campbell explained that consumption of animal protein, unlike plant protein, increases acidity in the blood. Calcium, as an effective base, gets pulled from the bones to neutralize the acidity.

The result: bones lose their calcium. Counties in China whose residents ate mostly plant protein (as opposed to animal protein), as cited above, had about one-fifth the fracture rates seen in the U.S.

Would we avoid sinking into osteoporosis if we simply ate less meat? (The vegetarians cheer!) Should we simply take more calcium in the diet? Why not both?

And just in case you really think the Asians are on to something, here’s a list of non-dairy, calcium-rich foods found in their diet: salmon, tofu, rhubarb, sardines, spinach, dark leafy greens, beans, broccoli, peas, brussels sprouts, sesame seeds, bok choy and almonds. Yum, brussels sprouts.

(For more information call Moreton Chiropractic at 250-428-3535 or visit moretonchiropractic.blogspot.com.)