Re: EDIT - Lead...

PB - "I agree with the excess calcium charge because I think it is referring to synthetic types and the current day obsession with dead milk, calcium-enriched foods/juices, osteoporosis, etc, etc. It may not be 100% accurate to what is going on with all people but that doesn't make it a gross misunderstanding. In fact, I tend to think its more right than wrong in the general pop."

grz - What makes you think it is an understanding that is more right than wrong? I suspect, as in most plants, most people have very defective (calcium) metabolisms. This does not make the calcium itself bad; I believe there are underlying causes and have written about them in posts here and there.

Not sure if you read this or not that QE put up...

http://www.westonaprice.org/basicnutrition/vitamin-k2.html

Even this article raises questions, like what is needed for K1 to K2 synthesis?

Knowing one or more "requirements" is not conclusive, there could always be another... as simple as adequate sun or a bit of exercise perhaps.

PB - "I guess for me, I go by my own observations and experience. Take my grandmother for instance; she has all the problems of calcium deficiency and all the problems of too much calcium. How? She does not suffer from an acidic condition and eats tons of fresh fruit. She does, however, drink hard water, calcium-enriched foods, and her doctors make her take excess calcium supplements.

She does not have fluorinated water and lives on the coast (literally) so gets lots of Iodine in her diet and air. If inorganic calcium had any merit, wouldn't some of her problems be at least mitigated? She's pretty much made of fixed glass (fragile and arthritically crippled), and I attribute that to inorganic calcium. Why? Her sister who lives next door (and lives nearly identically except the rock calcium) can do splits."

grz - Are you sure your grandmother does not suffer from an acidic condition? Is the food she eats good quality? Does she eat processed foods? Margarine? refined oils? This confusing issue could have much to do with many differences that may be unknown, including their historical and current diets, toxin exposure, exercise, sun exposure, etc., prescription and OTC medicines, NPK fertilizers could be an issue, or non-protein nitrogen in the food she eats. It would benefit you greatly in understanding to find out as much as you could about the differences and perhaps you could narrow the "cause"... there could be an underlying reason as simple as the type of fats and fruits and vegetables each of them eats.

--- Grz from previous post - --"So a disease, associated with too much calcium, if indeed that is what we are looking at, is more likely a malfunction of the glandular, signaling/regulatory system and not the calcium itself" --

PB - "Maybe and maybe not. If you believe in the notion that mineral metabolism is solely determined by glandular reaction (I personally don't), then you may have something there. To me, significant glandular responses are immunological responses, thus perhaps a clue that whatever you ingested was wrong in the first place. Additionally, if such defense actions degrade with age, then all the more reason to consume more ideal forms of nutrients because this (I believe) is one possible penalty associated with not eating what your body was best suited for."

grz - Perhaps you misunderstood me here... I do not believe that mineral metabolism is solely determined by glandular action... the reason I added the signaling/regulatory system, which was most likely not the best of wording. However, I did include things like etc., known and unknown factors, enzymes, bacteria, and such in the post that should have shown some sense of a broader scope of cause and effect.

PB - "You're partially right here. The body will do what it has to do (what it is forced to do to survive), but at what cost? Perhaps glandular dysfunction is one cost? This is exactly the philosophical disagreements I have with the iodiners and other synthetic supplementation advocates. Just because the body can be forced to do something (and some will study these processes and wrongly conclude because it "occurs" its "normal") doesn't mean that was the intended design.

Comparing plant root existence to a mobile animal is a poor comparison because stationary creatures MUST deal with their surroundings. They don't have choice or mobility of habitat. So it makes sense they are better suited for this form of metabolism. In my opinion, forced metabolism of substances the human body does not recognize will sacrifice longevity and long-term health unless there's significant adaptation (which we spoke about). Even adaptation is less than ideal unless it has run a course of many, many generations (strengthening gene pool, etc)."

grz - as an aside, we do not strengthen the human gene pool anymore outside of perhaps controlled (study how people - subconsciously - choose their mates) mating, at least not in a natural environmental sense where the mentally/physically weak and sick die, killed by predators, etc., and cannot then reproduce; adaptation is out the window as far as humans are concerned. Up till a few hundred years ago, the sick and deformed most often died quickly. In some cultures, an unhealthy or deformed child would be killed... otherwise the survival of the healthy parents and siblings were at stake.

Onward - The cost on the system is in the expending of co-factors to increase longevity and fecundity. I am sure that systemic and possibly glandular imbalances are part of the cost. I agree with your last two sentences in the first quoted paragraph above this comment.

I think the comparison to a root in the context of absorbing nutrients, is very valid... plants - root hairs - animals - intestinal villi, to convert nutrients into a usable form plants need bacteria and enzymes, just as we do. Perhaps a better term to use then "nutrient" would be energy... I am not sure which term would be understood better.

The action of the intestinal bacteria on the food we eat creates enzymes, vitamins, etc., the soil bacteria do the same around the root hairs of a root.

Perhaps you have seen me post pictures such as these...









They serve the same purpose in either living organism... there are similarities even with the cellular differences.

Are they identical then? No. Are a plants needs the same as ours? no? Is there a symbiotic relationship going on? Yes... not only between the soil\food and the root hairs/villi, bacteria, enzymes, etc., but also on a much larger scale as well, us with plants... respiration waste, etc.

What happens to the organism, animal or plant, in a sterile environment?

PB - "I don't think the old woman in China who eats rocks or those that have survived on clay balls disproves the "inorganic accumulation" theory. The body can adapt to anything and "survive". But is survival the only goal? Keep in mind too; she also lives a more simple "village life," further strengthening her resiliency by being outdoors and living more naturally. Try this in a Manhattan apt dwelling and my guess is she dies before 65. She is an explainable exception because her body has learned from an early age to excrete these rocks to some extent, thus warding off potential problems longer than most. Just because she eats rocks and has gotten away with it, doesn't mean its OK or that she won't pay a price for such proclivities at some point."

grz - Perhaps her body has learned to use and absorb some of the minerals from the rocks as well? What is the rest of her diet like? Sometimes these unique cases, while good to use as an example, do leave more questions than answers to an inquisitive mind. Lifestyle most definitely also plays a part.

PB - "I think a lot of what you share has merit and is very interesting, but I also think you are somewhat caught up in the "micro" analysis of things. Much of today's Science and study is micro-blind, and I think this is potentially bad from a philosophical standpoint. If you are so focused on what is occurring at the 1ft level you fail to see what's going on at 1000ft, and thus a lot of potential misunderstanding and false assumptions can prevail by over-complication -- proving and disproving things at such a micro level you fail to see a simpler macro view."

grz - And it all provides fodder for discussion and debate... along with the establishment of easy money making medical paradigms. I do study the "micro" of things and really hope that I do not get caught up in the them at the risk of losing sight of the whole... that is a bad thing in my opinion for the reason you cite. It is why I used terms such as etc., known and unknown, and included enzymes, bacteria, and glandular issues in my post. It is very difficult to address an article that micro - focuses on a particular mineral, vitamin, etc. without appearing that way in a response I suppose. I always try to step back and look at the bigger picture. Do I always step back far enough? Probably not.

PB - "I do agree with you that some minerals interact and conflict with others causing deficiencies and surpluses, etc. This is all probably very true, but this is exactly why the body requires balanced whole sources that are ideal to the organism, and perhaps some intelligent compensation (more of one source over the other) is needed to counter the damaging effects of a polluted habitat. Without whole forms, you lose balance and sacrifice bodily functions to maintain equilibrium. This "burns out" the organism much faster than need be."

grz - ...and why I will always state that clean water, air, earth and sun first and then the quality of that food, is absolutely always first and foremost in terms of good physical and mental health. Unfortunately, all food is a crap shoot these days, even if you grow your own, unless you have had your soil extensively analyzed and are well aware of the content of any water and fertilizer,organic or not, you put on the soil... even then, what is the quality of the air surrounding your plants?

grz-