The Lowdown on Calcium

Calcium is one of the most misunderstood nutrients.

The range of confusion varies from those who think dairy products contain the most absorbable type of this mineral to people who think spinach is a great source of calcium.

Let's clarify these points.

Are dairy products a good source of calcium? Yes. After all, eight ounces of milk provide a third of the daily value of calcium.

Are dairy products the only way to get calcium? Absolutely not.

Do dairy products provide calcium with the highest bioavailability? No.

Consider the following:

Eight ounces (one cup) of milk contain 300 milligrams of calcium.

A half cup of cooked bok choy provides 79 milligrams of calcium.

To someone unfamiliar with nutrition, the conclusion might seem obvious: "I need two cups of bok choy to get as much calcium as a cup of milk!"

Alas, nutrition science isn't always as obvious as it seems.

You actually only need one and a quarter cups of cooked bok choy to match the calcium you would get from a cup of milk since the calcium in bok choy is more absorbable than the one in dairy products.

The same thing happens with Chinese cabbage. A half cup of this cooked vegetable offers 239 milligrams of calcium, but that equals the amount of absorbable calcium in a cup of milk.

Let's now turn our attention to spinach. I am continually amazed by the amount of self-touted (though, clearly, not really) nutritione experts who list this vegetable as a good source of calcium.

A half cup of cooked spinach offers 115 milligrams of calcium. However, due to its high amount of oxalates (organic acids naturally found in spinach that inhibit calcium absorption), it takes EIGHT cups of cooked spinach to equal the amount of absorbable calcium in one cup of milk.

It just so happens that unlike spinach, the Brassica family of plants -- including broccoli, kale, bok choy, cabbage, and mustard greens) does not accumulate oxalate, thereby providing highly absorbable calcium.

I know some people like their nutrition advice in absolute form ("NEVER eat this, ALWAYS eat this), it's not my style.

My suggestions provide you with plenty of choices. If you like milk, drink it -- it provides a significant amount of calcium.

If you don't like it or don't want to include it in your diet, no need to worry about calcium as long as you include greens from the Brassica family and other non-dairy sources (tofu, tempeh, almonds, calcium-fortified alternative milks, etc.) in your diet.

You Ask, I Answer: Weston Price Organization

What do you know about the Weston Price Foundation?

-- Dennise O'Grady
Bay Head, NJ

Let's start with the positive -- they advocate for small farmers, and particularly strengthening farmer-to-consumer relationships.

Other than that, I view them as an extremist group that tends to border on silliness. That's their logo, by the way, which, they explain, illustrates Western societies' narrow-mindedness towards food.

An odd choice, since the "narrow vision" includes everything from Houston to Peruvian highlands to the Caribbean. Meanwhile, a lot of the nations in the "wide" circles have just as many problems with obesity, diabetes, and junk food consumption as the United States. I don't get it.

Their core belief? Full-fat raw dairy, butter, red meat, and soaked grains are the answer to a healthy life, while plant-based diets are the root of all health problems.

I'll let their writing speak for itself.

Exhibit A:

"According to an article in the Washington Post ("Don't have a cow, Mom," October 31, 2006) vegetarianism among teenagers is increasing. Vegetarian families eat a more varied diet, we are told, which includes such yummies as rutabaga and tofu. Not to worry, Mom, says the American Dietetic Association, ". . . a well-planned all-veggie diet for children and adolescents can be nutritionally sound. . . " as long as teens consume soy beverages and cereals fortified with vitamin D and B12. The dietitians claim teens can get adequate calcium, iron, zinc and protein from vegetables, grains, fruit, and, of course, soy foods. No mention is made of vitamin A, so necessary for reproductive health, nor of the downside of all those soy foods. So, don't have a cow, Mom. Just don't expect to have any grandchildren."

Gee,I must have missed all the headlines about vegetarian women being physically incapable of having children!

I have so many problems with that paragraph I don't even know where to begin.

First of all, vegetarianism does not necessarily translate into a high consumption of soy foods.

Additionally, the term "soy foods" is too broad. Adding nutrient-packed soy foods like tempeh or tofu to a dish is very different from eating two bags of processed soy chips every day.

As for vitamin A: we know that 12 micrograms of beta-carotene equal 1 microgram of Vitamin A. We also know that women need 700 micrograms of vitamin A a day.

Let's do some math. A half cup of cooked sweet potato provides approximately 7,000 micrograms of beta carotene, which translates into roughly 580 micrograms of vitamin A (more than three quarters of a day's worth!)

If this women were to then eat some carrots, an orange, an egg, some vitamin A-fortified milk, or a grapefruit that same day, they would easily meet their vitamin A requirement. So, what is the problem?

Exhibit B:

"George Rene Francis of Sacramento, who turned 110 this year, enjoys "tons of milk, tons of eggs, lard on bread and salt pork sandwiches." He avoids visits to the doctor but smokes cigars. He credits his virility to a combination of fresh camel's milk, daily walks and plenty of meat—rabbit, lamb, chicken and wild animals, which he still hunts himself (www.telegraph.co.uk, August 24, 2007)."

This is what you call bad science. No, make that horrendous science. Using an anomaly as proof of something is ludicruous. It's akin to a tobacco company using this news item to show that, hey, smoking is harmless!

Exhibit C:

"Today's dietary gurus tell us that we must eat vegetables and fruit to obtain vitamins and minerals. Per Magnuson, an astute member from Sweden, points out that fruits and vegetables cannot compare in nutrient levels with animal foods, especially nutrient-dense animal foods like liver. Here's what we came up with as a way of assessing the nutritional value of fruits and vegetables versus meat and liver. Note that every nutrient in red meat except for vitamin C surpasses those in apples and carrots, and every nutrient-including vitamin C-in beef liver occurs in exceedingly higher levels in beef liver compared to apple and carrots."

What a riot! How can someone in the nutrition field expect to be taken seriously when they don't take into account phytonutrients (which, by mere definition, are only available in plant foods)?

Good luck getting fiber from liver, too.

I also can't comprehend how so-called "experts" don't mention that one of the causes of hypervitaminosis A (vitamin A toxicity) is frequent consumption of liver!

Exhibit D:

"According to government and media health pundits, the top best 14 foods are:

1. Beans
2. Blueberries
3. Broccoli
4. Oats
5. Oranges
6. Pumpkin
7. Salmon
8. Soy
9. Spinach
10. Tea (green or black)
11. Tomatoes
12. Turkey
13. Walnuts
14. Yogurt
    

This uninspiring list reflects the current establishment angels (anti-oxidants and omega-3 fatty acids) and demons (saturated fats and animal foods).

Our list of the 14 best top foods, foods that supply vital nutrients including the fat-soluble vitamins, looks like this:

1. Butter from grass-fed cows (preferably raw)
2. Oysters
3. Liver from grass-fed animals
4. Eggs from grass-fed hens
5. Cod liver oil
6. Fish eggs
7. Whole raw milk from grass-fed cows
8. Bone broth
9. Shrimp
10. Wild salmon
11. Whole yogurt or kefir
12. Beef from grass-fed steers
13. Sauerkraut
14. Organic Beets

A diet containing only these foods will confer lifelong good health; a diet containing only the foods in the first list is the fast track to nutritional deficiencies."

Except that no one is saying people should limit themselves to the first fourteen items; rather, the recommendation is to include as many of them in your diet as you can. Making an argument based on erroneous pretenses is futile.

And what is up with the feeble "uninspiring list" diss? If anything, the first list has more variety and color than Weston A Price's!

Besides, does anyone really believe that a diet rich in tea, fruits, and vegetables causes nutritional deficiencies?

And where did the list attributed to "government and media pundits" come from? That list is not nutrition dogma by any means; any dietitian will tell you that you can be perfectly healthy without ever eating a tomato or a pumpkin as long as your overall diet patterns are healthy.

Again, illogical conclusions based on bad science.

I rest my case.

UPDATE: Since this post went up, I have received many comments on other (non-related) postings from "anonymous" sources who, ever-so-coincidentally, suggest I take a look at the Weston Price Organization's website for the "truth."

You Ask, I Answer: Liquid Calories

There's been quite a lot written about liquid calories in the last couple of years. Specifically, Nutrition Action (published by CSPI) has repeatedly warned that too many calories from milk, juice, and soda can lead to weight gain

I don't drink any of these things, but I do enjoy pureed whole foods.

If I make a smoothie from yogurt and whole fruit, or if I blend my vegetable and bean soup into a smooth puree, does my body read that as liquid or solid calories?

It's not clear to me if the problem with liquid calories is that they lack fiber and therefore don't fill you up, or if being pureed makes the sugars in food hit the bloodstream too quickly.

Or some other explanation entirely.

-- Rachelle Thibodeau
Ottawa, Canada

The type of liquid calories you refer to are different than juice and soda because they contain fiber and, therefore, take longer to digest.

That said, since smoothies are quickly consumed (more so than soups, which are hot and can take some time to finish), it can be very easy to down an 800 calorie one (i,e: a blend of milk, peanut butter, flax oil, and weight gaining powders) in a matter of minutes.

I should also note that a homemade smoothie with yogurt and whole fruits is different than many commercial ones made with fruit-flavored syrups or juice concentrates.

As for your blended soups: a pureed version of a food raises blood sugars more quickly than those same foods in their whole form, but since you are dealing with vegetables and beans, the fiber content is still high -- and will be helpful in filling you up quickly.

I refrain from putting milk in the same category as soda and juice drinks.

A glass of milk (whether dairy, soy, or nut) contains protein, a variety of nutrients, and some fat (depending on the variety of milk you drink). It is not liquid candy.

The concern with milk and weight gain has more to do with sugar-laden milk-based concoctions like milkshakes, flavored milks, and yogurt beverages that have as much sugar as a can of soda.

You Ask, I Answer: Reduced Fat Milk

I'm REALLY confused.

I know that "reduced fat" milk is a newer term for what used to be called "2 percent" milk, but why was it called 2 percent?

I can't figure it out! If you look at the nutrition label on a carton of "reduced fat" milk, it says that one cup has 123 calories and 5 grams of fat, which equals 8 percent of the Daily Value of fat.

So how did they ever get the "2 percent" figure?

-- Helen Berry
Seattle, WA

Your question perfectly demonstrates some of the reasoning behind the 1998 milk name-change -- most people had no clue what "two percent" meant!

Or, if they did, they were incorrect (i.e.: thinking each cup of "two percent" milk only contained "two percent" of the daily value of fat.)

Alas, the two percent figure is the product of dividing the grams of fat per serving by the total grams of everything (the rest of what is in milk, including protein, carbohydrates, and water) in that same serving.

Using real numbers, you simply divide the 5 grams of total fat in one cup of reduced-fat milk by the 244 grams of everything that make up that cup of reduced-fat milk and you get the magical 2 percent figure.

A useless figure, as far as I'm concerned. Daily Values are far more informative -- and important.

You Ask, I Answer: UHT Milk

Can you tell me what UHT milk is?

I have read in some websites that it is not safe to drink it since it can cause disease.

-- Cynthia (last name withheld)
Nashville, TN

"UHT" stands for ultra-heat treated.

In the case of UHT milk, you are talking about milk that is sterilized very quickly at extremely hot temperatures -- much higher than what is reached during standard pasteurization.

Consequently, it does not need to be refrigerated until opened. It can actually sit on shelves for anywhere from six to nine months, unopened, without spoiling.

Although not popular in the United States, UHT milk has been a staple in many South American and European countries for decades (the most famous manufacturer of UHT milk is Italian company Parmalat.)

I actually drank it quite a bit when I lived in Venezuela in the mid 1990s (power outages were very common in that country at the time, so buying UHT milk was one way to guarantee an unopened container of milk wouldn't go bad.)

The claims that it "causes disease" are not only annoyingly vague, but also completely untrue.

UHT milk is simply that -- milk.

It does not have added chemicals or artificial ingredients and there is absolutely nothing about it that makes it unhealthy or "not safe to drink."

You Ask, I Answer: PolyCystic Ovary Syndrome, Milk

I have a condition known as PolyCystic Ovary Syndrome, which results in my hormones being all out of whack.

I'm befuddled as to which would further alter my hormone levels more (and which hormones that would be): cow's milk or soy milk?

I have read that bodybuilders [try to avoid] soy-based protein powders because they increase estrogen [levels], but I have also read reports that the hormones in cow's milk can cause girls to [begin] puberty at a younger age.

Would drinking organic milk be the solution?

-- Rachael (last name unknown)
(city unknown), NJ

Let's first begin by touching upon some nutrition-related specifics regarding PolyCystic Ovary Syndrome (POS).

The hormones found at high levels in affected individuals are a group of male hormones known as androgens.

One interesting theory that has emerged about risk factors for POS (other than being overweight or obese) surrounds the body's inability to use up insulin efficiently.

Since high levels of free-floating insulin building up in the blood can increase the amount of androgens produced, it is believed this could be a factor behind the development of this syndrome.

This is also why POS in itself is a risk factor for Type-2 diabetes.

From a nutritional standpoint, the best recommendation is to lose excess weight, as this often results in more efficient use of insulin by the body and, consequently, lower production of androgens.

The catch-22 is that, for many individuals, it is precisely this hormonal imbalance that can add a degree of difficulty to achieving weight loss.

Consequently, I highly recommend that you speak to a Registered Dietitian (as opposed to picking out a diet plan from a book or magazine, even if it is from a highly reputable source.)

With POS, you need a customized plan based on your individual situation.

It really doesn't make a difference to your condition whether you include dairy or soy milk in your diet, as neither of these have a particular effect on androgen levels.

As for the link between hormones in milk and early puberty -- I don't buy it.

After all, milk consumption has been on a steady decline over the past two decades. It's children's intake of soda -- not milk -- that has skyrocketed since the 1980s!

A much more realistic explanation for the recent trend of earlier puberty initiation? Increasing obesity rates among children.

Highly respected endocrinology journals have published a handful of studies over the past few years -- such as this one -- making interesting physiological connections between high BMI levels and earlier sexual maturation in girls.

In The News: Milk Madness

The Chicago Tribune is profiling the battle over milk that has ignited in several of the Windy City's school districts.

On the one hand, you have administrators and parents supporting the inclusion of milk in school cafeterias, "amid concerns that dairy consumption is waning among older children who have more beverage choices, from flavored water to energy drinks. Nine of every 10 preteen girls fall short of the federally recommended three calcium servings a day... for boys, the estimate is 7 of 10."

Then there are those concerned with flavored non-skim milks contributing to childhood obesity. Huh??

"A half-pint of low-fat chocolate milk has 3 teaspoons of added sugar... [and] those extra 75 calories raise a concern, given that surveys compiled by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have found that 17 percent of school-age children are obese."

Whoever is concerned about those additional 75 calories seriously needs to reevaluate their priorities.

Childhood obesity is not caused by opting for low-fat chocolate milk over non-flavored skim milk at lunchtime.

All you need to do is look at the numbers. As childhood obesity rates have skyrocketed, milk consumption has decreased.

What has increased? Soda consumption -- overwhelmingly so!

It is those beverages, plus chips, breakfast toaster pastries, and supersize fast food portions -- staples of so many American teenagers' diets -- that should truly be "of concern."

It's also rather laughable to think that some schools are concerned with milk but apparently don't take issue with their almost daily offerings of meatloaf, chicken nuggets, and fruit canned in heavy syrup.

A glass of low-fat chocolate milk with a healthy lunch is harmless. This apparent phobia of 1% (reduced-fat) milk is beyond my comprehension.

We are talking about 2.5 grams of total fat, of which 1.5 gram are saturated, per cup. Perfectly reasonable numbers, as far as I'm concerned.

You Ask, I Answer: Liquid Calories

I've read that we don't really seem to feel full after drinking caloric drinks like soda, [which is why] we can easily guzzle down 600 calories of Pepsi and still feel hungry.

My question is, does this apply just as much to milk, or soymilk?

It seems like while I could guzzle down a full glass of soymilk and not feel that much more satiated, it definitely fills me up more than drinking a glass of Diet Coke.

-- Christine (Last name unknown)
Via the blog

Those studies are absolutely legitimate, but they mainly apply to empty calories like the ones found in soda and fruit drinks (in my mind, KoolAid and its imitations are basically flat soda).

Since these beverages contain nothing but sweeteners, they don't do much in the way of providing satiety. Correction -- they do absolutely NOTHING.

Keep in mind, too, that in your particular case, you are talking about diet soda, which provides zero calories.

Milk and soy milk are more nutritious beverages. They contain protein and some fat (unless you are drinking skim milk), two nutrients that play a significant role in helping us feel full.

This same concept can be applied to food. Take almonds and pretzels.

Pretzels are basically nothing but refined flour -- practically 100 percent fiberless carbohydrate.

Nuts, meanwhile, contains protein, fat, and fiber.

That is why 150 calories of almonds leave you feeling fuller than that same amount of pretzels.

Although liquid calories promote less fullness than solid food, milk and soy milk are certainly more filling than sugar water.

You Ask, I Answer/In The News: Vitamin D requirements

I read today that the recommended amount of vitamin D has doubled due to a new study.

I thought most people get enough of it.

How much vitamin D do we get from dairy as compared to being out in the sun?

--Hemi
Via the blog

The issue of Vitamin D requirements being too low has been a hot topic in the nutrition field for years.

According to current recommendations, children and adults up to the age of 50 should get at least 200 International Units, adults 50 to 71 years of age should aim for 400 IUs, and anyone above the age of 71 should be taking in 600.

The new guidelines you are referring to bump up the 200 IUs figure to 400 IUs.

Even so, many researchers think everyone should aim for 1,000 IUs a day!

The best source of Vitamin D is the sun, but this can get complicated.

After all, we get this vitamin from exposure to UVB rays, which are not as powerful in winter months and have a harder time getting through on cloud-covered days.

Additionally, the massive use of moisturizers and creams that block out UVB rays prevents many people from absorbing a good deal of "solar powered" vitamin D.

Some fortified foods (i.e.: cereals, soy milks, and dairy milk) provide vitamin D, while others (tuna, salmon, and... ugh, cod liver oil) do so naturally.

Despite this, it can be very difficult to meet the Vitamin D recommended intakes without some sort of supplementation.

For example, a cup of fortified dairy milk provides a quarter of a day's worth of Vitamin D (using 400 IUs as the goal).

Not bad, but unless you're planning on downing four glasses of milk a day, you will come up short.

Keep in mind, too, that many dairy products (like yogurt, cottage cheese, and ice cream) are NOT fortified with vitamin D.

Going back to the sun, the general recommendation is that 30 minutes of exposure to sunlight twice a week provides sufficient levels vitamin D.

Interestingly, research studies earlier this year concluded that individuals living in countries near the equator tend to have higher vitamin D levels than their counterparts to the North and South.

You Ask, I Answer: Casein

What is casein, and how does it relate to nutrition?

The reason why I ask is because here in Argentina, a popular brand of milk called La Serenisima has released a new milk with extra calcium and extra casein.

What do you think?

-- Maria (last name withheld)
Buenos Aires, Argentina

Casein is the main protein in milk (80% of protein in the dairy beverage is in the form of casein; the remaining 20% consists of whey.)

The only way it relates to nutrition is that, just like all other animal proteins -- and soy -- it is complete, meaning it provides all eight essential amino acids.

Although casein is highly bioavailable (the technical term for "the body wastes very little of it,") it is beaten out by egg albumin and whey protein.

I am not sure why a company would look to create "high casein" milk, particularly since casein is by no means an essential nutrient.

It is perfectly plausible to meet all your protein and nutrient needs without ever ingesting any casein.

Perhaps "extra casein" is their snazzy terminology for "extra protein," which I still do not see the necessity for.

Milk is already a good source of protein (9 grams per 8 ounce/236 milliliter glass), and as far as I know, protein deficiency is not a health issue in Buenos Aires.

My thoughts? This is simply an inventive marketing strategy to boost milk sales.

While we're on the topic of casein, allow me to say a few more things.

Although a small percentage of the population (roughly 2 - 3 percent) is allergic to casein, that is very different from being lactose intolerant.

A casein allergy is an altered immunological response to a specific protein, whereas lactose intolerance has to do with the body's inability to break down lactose, the naturally occurring sugar in milk and other dairy products.

That said, keep in mind that casein is in a lot of non-dairy processed foods (and many cosmetic products) since it is a rather inexpensive binding agent. This is why people with casein allergis need to read food labels VERY carefully.

You Ask, I Answer: Dairy

What are your thoughts on milk?

Specifically about the fact that the dairy industry has convinced millions of people, thanks to a very expensive campaign, that milk is the best source of calcium and vitamin D?

There are other ways to get calcium, including broccoli and other greens, so why does milk always show up as the best source?

Humans are also the only species to drink milk as adults. Don't you find that odd? Doesn't the fact that millions of people are allergic to milk mean that it's unhealthy?

Also, I read that there is an addictive component in milk (I think casein?) that keeps people coming back for more, including babies.

Am I healthy if I don't drink milk? What if I do?

-- (Name withheld)
Brooklyn, NY

Quite a lot of questions. Let's take them piece by piece.

My thoughts on a milk? It is a beverage that, depending on the variety, can be a healthy or not-so-healthy choice.

A glass of skim or low fat milk with your breakfast? Great source of calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, riboflavin, and protein.

An extra large latte with half and half? All you're really getting is a boatload of calories and saturated fat (half and half contains very little protein and calcium.)

Is the milk lobby a powerful presence in Washington? You betcha. Why else do you think the "dairy" group in the food pyramid is now called the "milk" group.

That is one change I am very unhappy about, as it takes away attention from other healthy options like yogurt, and cottage cheese.

That said, dairy products truly are a good source of calcium. Not only is the quantity of said mineral rather high, it is also among the most absorbable.

As for vitamin D -- it is not naturally present in milk, but is rather there as a result of fortification. Cereals, orange juice, and soy drinks are also fortified with just as much Vitamin D, so I do not consider dairy to be the "go to" food for the sunshine vitamin.

Besides, a glass of milk provides approximately one tenth of the daily Vitamin D requirement, so the best way to get the sunshine vitamin is to soak up about 20 minutes of sunlight a day and, in my opinion, pop a supplement.

Can you get sufficient calcium without dairy? Absolutely. Nowadays, with calcium-fortified juices and soy products, there is no reason for the word "vegan" to mean "calcium deprived."

There are also a variety of non-dairy foods that naturally contain calcium: tofu, tempeh, and soybeans among them.

Keep in mind that some leafy green vegetables (spinach, beet greens, and rhubarb) contain oxalates, which bind to calcium and greatly reduce its absorption.

If you're looking to get some calcium from vegetables, opt for collard greens, bok choy, and kale.

Seaweed also happens to be a great non-dairy source of calcium.

As for the argument that humans are the only species to drink milk as adults (and therefore some sort of natural aberration), it's one of those leaps of logic that makes absolutely no sense to me.

Other animals don't have the choice to drink milk as adults.

After a certain time, their mother's milk supply is gone, and they certainly don't have supermarkets to shop at, or other species to cuddle up to and start suckling from.

The "humans are the only animals to drink milk as adults" argument isn't even true.

I can tell you from personal experience that if I pour cow's milk into a bowl, my cat will happily drink it without any prodding on my part.

Human allergies with milk have nothing to do with its status as "healthy" or "unhealthy" food. Many people are allergic to peanuts and shrimp, two very healthy foods.

As for there being an addictive substance in milk, I haven't seen that mentioned anywhere in the literature. The reason why babies "keep coming back for more" is because their mothers are feeding it to them.

I firmly stand in the middle of this issue. I believe a perfectly healthy diet can be milk-free just as I believe that milk can be a nutritious beverage.

Personally, I am partial to organic milk from grass-fed cows.

For the record, I have no issues with pasteurized milk. I don't see any reason to start seeking out raw milk (remember, we don't need digestive enzymes from food, so the fact that these enzymes are killed when milk is pasteurized means nothing.)

What I find horribly messed up is that the milk from a cow that eats nothing but grass and is not pumped up with any Franken-hormones (the ONLY milk available at one point in time) is now a "luxury" high-cost product. Ugh.

You Ask, I Answer: Dairy Alternatives/Rice Milk

I found recently that cows milk and I don't get on, which is a pity since I love cheese.

Anyway, I've been avoiding cheese while I try to lose weight.

I have also switched from cow's milk to rice milk, but I'm not sure if rice milk has more fat or calories, and I'm finding the labeling on my cartons a little confusing.

Is rice milk okay, or should I be looking to other alternatives? (I'm not a big fan of the soy milk flavor).

-- Ryan Nelson
Brighton, England

Lactose intolerance can occur in varying degrees.

Being unable to digest cow’s milk does not necessarily mean cheese and yogurts should also be off-limits.

A slice of hard cheese – such as Swiss – offers a tenth of the lactose in a glass of milk. The active cultures in some yogurts, meanwhile, can also help avoid digestive problems.

Let’s assume, though, that your intolerance to lactose is such that even the tiniest amount in any dairy product offsets problems.

In that case, I don’t consider rice milk an equal alternative to cow’s milk.

Whereas soy milk is a good source of protein and is often fortified with calcium and vitamin D, the same does not hold for rice milk.

Consider the following:

A cup (8 fluid ounces) of skim milk contains 91 calories, 8.7 grams of protein, and 30% of the daily calcium requirement.

A cup of reduced-fat (2%) milk adds up to 123 calories, 8.1 grams of protein, and 28.5% of a day’s calcium needs.

A cup of rice milk? 120 calories, 1 gram of protein, and just 2% of the daily calcium requirement.

In your case, I would recommend Lactaid products (which I believe are sold under the name Milkaid in the UK) – whether it’s actual Lactaid milk or having a Lactaid pill prior to consuming dairy.

You Ask, I Answer: Pasteurization

Is it true that orange juice loses some of its micronutrient value through pasteurization?

If so, do these nutrients get added back into the juice following pasteurization?

And lastly, if pasteurization does effect the nutrient content, what does that mean for milk?

Please help me clear up this confusion.

-- Anonymous
Via the blog

Since pasteurization involves heat, some of the Vitamin C (a nutrient sensitive to heat) in orange juice is lost in the process – approximately fifteen to twenty percent.

It’s actually not a big deal, since 8 ounces of pasteurized orange juice still deliver more than a day’s worth of Vitamin C.

Unlike the Enrichment Act of 1942 (which mandates that nutrients originally found in grain products but lost in the milling process be added back in), there is no such law for fruit juices.

Regardless, I am a proponent of opting for a whole fruit over a juice. Not only do you get slightly higher vitamin and mineral values -- you also get more fiber!

As far as milk is concerned, nutrient losses as a result of pasteurization (simply heating it at 161.5 Degrees Fahrenheit for a 15 seconds) are not very significant.

Since the B vitamins present in milk (riboflavin and niacin) are heat sensitive, there are some small losses, but these vitamins are enriched in grain products and otherwise easily accessible in the diet.

It would take a VERY limited diet to be deficient in either of those two nutrients.

I do not think of pasteurization as a process that is majorly depriving us of nutrients.

Many raw milk enthusiasts will spout off statistics about pasteurized milk offering less absorbable calcium, although I have yet to see any of this information published in any respectable journals.

They will also talk about valuable enzymes "being destroyed" by pasteurization, not realizing we don't need to get digestive enzymes from food -- our bodies naturally produce them.

Back to the absorption issue.

Research has demonstrated that we absorb approximately one third of calcium in milk -- raw or pasteurized.

If high-quality, "junk-free" milk is on your mind, I would be more concerned with getting it from non-hormone-treated, grass-fed cows rather than worry about pasteurization.

I can't think of any particular health benefits associated with raw milk.

You Ask, I Answer: Cow Or Soy Milk?

When it comes to milk, is soy milk better for kids than regular cow's milk?

-- Anonymous
Via the blog

I don't consider either "better" than other. This ultimately depends on personal preference and a few other factors.

I don’t have a problem with children drinking skim or low-fat milk, provided that they aren’t lactose intolerant, of course.

What disappoints me is that so many schools offer chocolate milk to children (and label it a "healthy" alternative simply because it contains calcium).

A single cup contains a tablespoon of added sugar. It's fine as a treat, but I don't find it to be the optimal beverage to accompany a meal on a daily basis.

Unfortunately, the majority of milk in the United States -- chocolate or not -- in the United States is produced by cows that chow on corn all day long and are injected with antibiotics and growth hormones.

Milk in and of itself is a nutritious beverage, though, providing high-quality protein, calcium, vitamin D, vitamin A, phosphorus, and potassium.

I would highly recommend opting for organic, grass-fed varieties.

Soy milk is a perfectly fine alternative.

Most varieties are fortified with vitamin D and provide a good amount of calcium, protein, and potassium.

I would be more concerned with what they're eating along with that cold glass of (dairy or soy) milk.

*UPDATE* Thank you to reader "gd" for pointing out that vanilla and chocolate flavored soy milks also contain quite a bit of added sugar.

I erroneously assumed everyone reads minds and would telepathically infer I was only referring to regular soy milk in this post.

So, if you are opting for soy milk, I suggest going for plain or unsweetened varieties.

You Ask, I Answer: Osteoporosis

I am a 56 year old woman diagnosed with osteoporosis.

I would like to know the best way to incorporate calcium [in]to my diet.

-- Maria Barbosa
Argentina

Before I answer your specific question, let's briefly discuss the larger issue.

Osteoporosis -- a condition in which bone tissue deteriorates and bone density decreases, thereby weakening the skeletal system (see accompanying illustration) -- is especially prevalent among women.

In the United States alone, it is estimated that approximately 10 million adults currently live with osteoporosis, and an astounding 75 percent of them are women.

In case you are wondering about the difference between these two groups, a decline in estrogen at menopause is associated with decreased bone density.

Men, meanwhile, are protected by testosterone. Although testosterone levels decrease with age, they are still at a sufficient range to guard against the onset of osteoporosis.

Since osteoporosis is “symptom free” (you don’t feel weak, bloated, tired, or get headaches), it is completely feasible to develop it and be completely unaware of this for years.

To discuss how osteoporosis starts – and how to make the necessary changes once diagnosed with it – let’s go back to the beginning.

Our bones are a vast storage unit for a handful of minerals, especially calcium.

It’s important to have a strong reserve of calcium because we lose it on a daily basis.

All bodily excretions (sweat, urine, and feces) contain calcium, and our nails require it for production and growth.

Calcium is also needed for a variety of bodily functions (i.e.: forming blood clots).

Consume adequate amounts of this mineral every day and you easily replenish any losses.

If calcium intake is insufficient, that’s where the problem begins.

The body, desperate for calcium, doesn’t find any circulating in the blood and goes to the trusted storage unit for some.

In turn, bones are demineralized and broken down.

Imagine this happening on a daily basis for ten, twenty, even thirty years!

By the time you hit the fifty or sixty year-old mark, your bones are -- not surprisingly -- quite fragile and acutely demineralized.

Although many people automatically equate osteoporosis with calcium, there are other factors to keep in mind.

A crucial one is Vitamin D, which helps our bodies absorb calcium (this is why you often see calcium supplements also containing Vitamin D).

As I have explained before, Vitamin D is not found in many foods (the best source is actually the sun).

If you live in an area of the world that does not receive much sunlight for five or so months of the year, or if your dermatologist has strongly recommended you always use UV-proof skin lotions, you run the risk of being significantly deficient.

The solution? Reach for a daily supplement! Aim for 1,000 International Units a day.

Protein also plays a role in preventing osteoporosis.

Both sides of the spectrum – not getting enough or getting too much – are problematic.

A lack of protein in the diet will hinder the body’s ability to repair and rebuild bone tissue.

An excess, meanwhile, results in urine outputs with higher calcium levels than normal.

Phosphoric acid is also worth paying attention to. Found in regular and diet sodas, it disturbs the body’s calcium balance mechanism, often resulting in calcium being leeched from bones.

Sodium – a mineral the majority of people in the United States overconsume– also plays a role in osteoporosis.

High sodium intakes increase calcium losses through the urine (a result of the body attempting to keep various mineral levels proportional).

With all that in mind, how can you be proactive about lowering your risk of developing osteoporisis (and maintaing what bone mass you do have at the time you are diagnosed with it)?

From a nutritional standpoint, make sure you get sufficient amounts of calcium and Vitamin D and that you do not surpass maximum recommendations for sodium and protein.

Aim for 800 – 1,200 milligrams of calcium a day.

To answer your question, all dairy products are a great source, as are tofu, almonds, oats, and any fortified products.

Spinach, however, is one food that gets way too much credit.

Although it offers substantial amounts of various nutrients, don’t put it in your osteoporosis defense kit.

Spinach offers significant amounts of calcium, but also contains high levels of oxalate, a compound that binds to calcium and greatly reduces its absorbability in our gastrointestinal tract.

The good news is that oxalates only affect calcium absorption of the food they are in.

So, if you’re having a spinach and tofu stirfry, only the dark leafy green vegetable's calcium will be practically rendered useless.

Aside from nutrition, one of the best things you can do to minimize your risk of developing osteoporosis (and prevent further bone demineralization if you have already been diagnosed) is weight-bearing exercises.

This does not mean you need to necessarily start lifting heavy weights or buildmuscles. It’s really just about performing physical activity in which the muscles have to resist weight.

Remember, bone strengthens up when stressed. Hence, challenging it with weights on a regular basis helps to maintain -- and even increase -- its density.

As you can see, there are helpful steps you can take at any stage of the game. There is no reason to give in to osteoporosis.

In The News: Frankenmilk

Scandal is a-brewin' in Ohio and Utah.

Ohio has decided to go against the Food & Drug Administration policy on synthetic hormone label claims and mandate that dairy products sold in that state cannot mention being synthetic-hormone free.

Utah, meanwhile, is looking into similar restrictions.

Both of these policies concern rBGH -- recombinant bovine growth hormone, also known as rBST, or recombinant bovine somatotropin -- an artificial form of naturally-occuring bovine growth hormone.

This synthetic compound is injected into dairy cows to significantly increase milk production.

It's equivalent to an alien race coming down to Earth, enslaving humans, and injecting men with an ultra powerful dose of synthetic testosterone in order for them to lift heavier weights and work harder.

It is a purely business and money-motivated decision. The more milk you have, the more you can sell, and the more money that goes into your pocket.

The Food & Drug Administration approved rBGH (it was declared "safe for use") in 1993.

Agrobusiness giant Monsanto immediately began producing and selling it by the bucketloads.

Controversy has always surrounded rBGH, mainly because several medical trials have linked it to a higher risk of developing certain tumors and cancers.

Monsanto and rBGH gained notoriety in the mid 90's after a Tampa Fox affiliate pulled a story on the possible health dangers of rBGH consumption after much pressure from Monsanto.

And it's not just humans who can be negatively affected.

Cows receiving rBGH injections often get sick (cows treated with rBGH have significantly higher risks of developing udder infections than those not treated with the drug).

In turn, they are fed antibiotics -- another undesirable component in milk.

It is not surprising, then, that rBGH is banned from all dairy products in Europe and Canada.

It frustrates me that consumers in some states are being forbidden the right to know what is in some of the foods they buy.

I never agreed with the use of rBGH but thought that if it is included in any product, we should be made aware of its presence.

What's most interesting about this whole story is that the FDA is in a unique position. They permit the use of rBGH in milk, but only if there is full disclosure.

Honesty policy or good old ass covering?

In The News: D-Mistifying D

Vitamin D -- affectionately called "Sunny D', since sunlight is our primary source-- is undoubtedly the hottest nutrient these days, so it is no surprise The New York Times is dedicating more space to it today.

Not only is its importance in a variety of body functions consistently becoming more clear, traditional recommendations suggesting a daily intake of 400 International Units are being questioned.

Recent research has led dietitians to establish a much-higher 1,000 International Units as the desired daily intake.

Since Vitamin D is found very scarcely in foods (a cup of fortified milk provides 100 IU's), it is one of the few nutrients I highly recommend people who do not get enough sun (either because of winters with little hours of sunlight or because of the use of UV protection creams) supplement in pill form.

Research studies showing the benefits of sufficient Vitamin D intake is a dime a dozen:

"A Swiss study of women in their 80s found greater leg strength and half as many falls among those who took 800 I.U. of vitamin D a day for three months along with 1,200 milligrams of calcium, compared with women who took just calcium. Greater strength and better balance have been found in older people with high blood levels of vitamin D."

And then there's this one:

"Researchers at Creighton University in Omaha conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial... among 1,179 community-living, healthy postmenopausal women. They reported last year in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition that over the course of four years, those taking calcium and 1,100 I.U. of vitamin D3 each day developed about 80 percent fewer cancers than those who took just calcium or a placebo."

According to current estimates, as much as 60 percent of the United States adult population is Vitamin D deficient -- and that's based on the starting-to-be-considered-low 400 IU figure!

In The News: Low and Non-Fat Milk: The New Enemies

Here is my take on the recent "skim and lowfat milk pose a higher risk of developing malignant tumors than whole milk."

First of all, the findings are rather vague and contradictory.

On the one hand, we have the following quote:

"Low-fat or non-fat milk did increase the risk of localized tumors or non-aggressive tumors, while whole milk decreased the risk."

That is soon followed by this statement:

"Our findings do not provide strong support for the hypothesis that calcium and dairy foods increase the risk of prostate cancer."

Huh? Isn't this like accusing someone of cold-blooded murder and then, when questioned on the stand, saying, "Well, I didn't actually see him carrying the weapon or standing anywhere near the body."?

The report also makes no mention of possible theories behind the alleged link between low/non-fat milk and these higher risks. For example, is this due to something being molecularly altered in the defattening process?

Some people have e-mailed me and asked me if I thought growth hormones and antibiotics in conventional milk could be the culprits behind the findings.

While a very good question, I don't see any mention of the low/non-fat milks being conventional and the whole milk in the study being organic, thus I don't think additives are relevant in this study's context (although, as you know, I recommend consuming organic milk whenever possible, and if it's from grass-fed cows, even better).

Over the past two days I have tried to localize where funding for this study came from, but have come up empty. The cynic in me wonders if a soft drink company provided the moolah behind this research.

After all, whole milk consumption has decreased considerably over the past few decades, while low/non-fat milk and soda sales have increased.

Perhaps a sly soda exec thought, "Hmmm.... skim milk drinkers would never go back to whole. Maybe if we start making lower fat dairy seem evil, people would replace it with diet soda."

Another interesting tidbit? All food consumption in this study was self-reported, which lends itself to faulty memory, erroneous reporting, and inaccurate data.

This study reminds me of the recent "diet soda linked to obesity" findings, which the mainstream media immediately pounced on without once thinking that more than likely it wasn't the soda that was the culprit, but the fact that people accompany that beverage -- whether regular or diet -- with unhealthy FOODS.

In this case, I wonder, for instance, if the low/non-fat milk drinkers were also consuming alternative sources of fat containing trans fats (which most certainly have been linked with increased cancer risks and tumor growth). Or, they perhaps had a lower fiber intake (a higher fiber intake is considered one of the best nutritional weapons against the development and progression of prostate cancer)?

This truly seems like a non-issue that the media has, once again, taken out of context in an attempt to stir up some controversy.

By the way, apart from a high-fiber diet, I am happy to report that urologists agree that one of the absolute best ways to keep your prostate healthy is to empty it often.

In The News: Skim & Lowfat Milk: Waist-Friendly, Prostate-Attacking?

I can't wait to see how the National Dairy Council responds to this study.

I unfortunately do not have a working Internet connection at home at the moment, so I will not comment on this study until Friday afternoon. I want to read the research before posting any opinions.

For the time being, though, I suspect this might be a small molehill erroneously reported as an intimidating mountain.

More to come tomorrow...

Say What?: This Report Card is Brought To You By Mickey D's

Thank you to reader Chris Davis for sending me a link to the latest McDonald's marketing campaign -- report cards!

That's right -- Ronald's burger joint and The School Board of Seminole Country, Florida, have teamed up to offer free Happy Meals to students achieving good academic, conduct, and attendance scores.

Some of you might expect me to be flabbergasted and start punching my computer screen. Well, color yourselves surprised.

For starters -- the Happy Meal offers the choice of apple dippers instead of fries and milk in place of soda. I have to give McDonald's some credit for allowing customers to venture outside of the usual "soda and fries" mentality.

I also think that frequency, and not a Happy Meal itself, should be the examined issue.

If this free Happy Meal is a once-in-a-blue-moon occurrence, I don't interpret that as a public health menace.

If anything, restricting unhealthy meals to certain events is better than placing them in the "grab whenever we're in a rush" category or normalizing them as an authentic substitute for a home cooked meal.

Yes, I know we are dealing with the issue of using food as reward, which brings its share of problems. And, no, I'm not comfortable with the idea of McDonald's advertising on a report card.

It is one thing if a parent chooses to grab a Happy Meal with their kids as a way of rewarding them for good grades, it's another when children come home and say, "Mom, I got all A's, can we go to McDonald's? Look, we can go for free!"

However, when I was an elementary school student in Connecticut, a local deli offered the exact same report card deal.

Granted, it was not promoted by my school, but (surprisingly?), this is not a case of McDonald's setting a new low standard.