We have a lot of choices to make about our diet.
Add to that, doing the right thing
when it comes to preventing
and treating a chronic disease,
fighting a virus, or losing weight,
and suddenly our nutrition choices
can seem almost overwhelming.
Well, I’m here to help.
Welcome to the Nutrition Facts Podcast.
I’m your host, Dr. Michael Greger.
Today, it all comes down
to the shape and support of our body,
the protection of our organs and those things
without which we would quickly become a gelatinous mass
— our bones!
In our first story,
we look at how those eating plant-based diets
may be so slim, that they suffer from a loss of bone mass.
Osteoporosis is estimated to affect 200 million people worldwide.
Literally meaning "porous bone ," osteoporosis is a disease
characterized by reduced bone formation, excessive bone loss,
or a combination of both, leading to bone fragility
and increased risk of fractures.
And bone mineral density is the most robust and consistent predictor
of osteoporotic fracture. What can we eat to boost our bone density?
Well, we know that increased consumption of plant foods
is associated with increased bone mineral density.
There's an extensive range of micronutrients and phytochemicals
packaged within plants that can be powerful promoters of bone health,
so healthcare professionals should be encouraged
to advise the increased consumption of plant-based foods,
particularly in mid-life,
irrespective of the clients underlying dietary pattern,
meaning no matter how much meat or junk they eat,
adding more healthy plant foods may help prevent
the development of osteoporosis.
On the other hand, a more animal-source nutrient pattern
has been associated with a higher risk of fractures,
suggesting that a more animal-based diet is related to bone fragility.
So one would expect less osteoporosis in those eating plant-based diets,
but you don't know until you put it to the test.
"The Incidence of osteoporosis in vegetarians and omnivores ,"
the first study published nearly 50 years ago,
and the density of the bones that were measured was
significantly greater in the vegetarians than the omnivores.
In fact, the average bone densities of the vegetarians in their '70s
was greater than the densities of the meat eaters in their '50s.
Bottom line, these results suggest there's less likelihood of vegetarians
developing osteoporosis in old age.
Turns out, though, that the researchers screwed up.
DEXA scanning, which is what we use now,
didn't come online until the 1980s.
So the researchers were just using regular x-rays
and they confused the readings, such that darker bones on the x-ray
got a higher score, but that actually means less bone,
so their conclusion should have been the opposite
of what they claimed.
So vegetarians had worse bone mineral density.
Fast-forward about 40 years, by which time nine studies
had been done on thousands of individuals, and all in all,
the results suggest that vegetarian diets, particularly vegan diets,
are associated with lower bone mineral density, but
the magnitude of the association is clinically insignificant, meaning
the difference was so small as to not really matter out in the real world,
reinforcing the fact that vegetarian diets
have no clinically detrimental effect on bone health.
And it is important to note that the findings of lower
bone mineral density didn't fully control for key confounding factors,
such as for differences in body weight.
We know that people who are obese have stronger bones. Why?
Because they're weight lifting 50 pounds all day, every day, and maybe 100 pounds.
If you walked around with a 100-pound backpack every day,
your bones would grow stronger, too.
That's how you build strong bones: weight-bearing exercise.
So people who weigh more have denser bones.
And vegetarians, and especially vegans, have such low rates of obesity
that no wonder, on average they would have lower bone density.
The researchers didn't take weight into account,
but if the difference they found isn't even clinically significant, who cares?
As of 2009, the answer to the question,
"Is vegetarianism a serious risk factor for osteoporotic fracture?"
the answer was no. Vegetarianism is not a serious risk factor.
By 2018, the latest meta-analysis on veganism, vegetarianism,
and bone mineral density, was up to 20 studies,
involving tens of thousands of participants, and, again,
lower bone mineral density was found in studies
of vegetarians and vegans compared to meat eaters.
The researchers conclude that vegetarian and vegan diets
need to be appropriately planned to preserve their bones.
But wait, did they account for the obesity thing?
No, they did not.
They just used what are called crude risk ratios,
meaning no adjustments for confounding factors like weight,
so they didn't control for things like age, smoking, obesity,
exercise, and so their results are really uninterpretable.
But no one had gone through the trouble of going back through
all those studies and making the proper adjustments until now.
The title gives it away: "Differences in Bone Mineral Density between
Vegetarians and Nonvegetarians Become Marginal when
Accounting for Differences in Body Size Factors."
Yes, bone mineral density values were significantly lower
among vegetarians than among nonvegetarians,
just like is the case with nearly every study
on bone mineral density and excess body weight.
But forget clinical significance; these differences
even lost statistical significance upon adjustment for body size
factors, suggesting that lower bone mass among vegetarians
is in larger parts explained by their lower BMI and waist circumference.
Thus, it's not so much the composition of the diets of vegetarians and vegans
as much as it is the fact that they become so much slimmer.
Now a small but statistically significant difference remained
for total lower spine density, a difference of 0.03.
This was dismissed as having little clinical relevance, but is that true?
If you look at the reproducibility of bone mineral density
measurements in daily medical practice, you can see how
if you do repeat tests back-to-back, there's some scatter
in the measurements, and so a significant difference
really has to be more than the inherent variation.
And indeed, expressed as the smallest detected difference,
you really need a bone mineral density disparity
of at least 0.05 at the spine
before it can be considered a significant change,
and so indeed, there does appear to be little clinical relevance.
However, even if vegetarians and vegans basically
have the same bone density at the same weight,
everyone who is skinny is at risk.
Low BMI is a risk factor for fractures, so all persons in
a low body weight category consuming any kind of diet
should be monitored for osteoporosis.
In our next story, we look at the decades-old dogma
that the lack of animal protein leads to bone loss.
For most of the last century, a prevailing theory
within the field of nutrition was that
by eating acid-forming foods such as meat
we were, in essence, at risk of peeing our bones
down the toilet.
And no wonder!
Experiments dating back to 1920
showed over and over that if you add meat to the diet
you get a big spike in the amount of calcium
being lost in the urine.
And so this made total sense.
We had known since 1912
that meat was acid- forming within the body,
and how do you buffer acid?
What are in antacid pills, anti-acid pills like Tums?
Calcium.
Meat and eggs have a lot of sulfur-containing amino acids,
2-5 times more than grains and beans
that are metabolized into sulfuric acid,
which the body buffers with calcium.
That's why the antacids like Tums are made out of calcium,
calcium can buffer acid.
And where is calcium stored in the body?
The skeleton.
So the thinking was that every time we ate a steak
our body would pull calcium from our bones,
bit by bit, and over time this could lead to osteoporosis.
Based on 26 such studies every 40 grams of protein
we add to your daily diet we pee out an extra 50mg of calcium.
And look we only have about 2 pounds of calcium in our skeleton,
so the loss of 50 a day would mean
losing close to 2% of bone calcium every year.
And so by the end of the 20th century,
there was little doubt that acid-forming diets
would dissolve our bones away.
But if you actually look at all the studies
done on protein intake and bone health,
that's not what you find.
So, where's the flaw in our logic?
Meat leads to acid, which leads to calcium loss,
which leads to bone loss, right?
Well, it's uncontroversial that protein results in greater calcium excretion,
but we've just been assuming it's coming from the bone—
I mean where else could the extra calcium
dumped in our urine be coming from but from our bones?
This is the study that appeared to solve the mystery.
An intrepid group of researchers tried feeding a bunch of volunteers
radioactive calcium and then putting them on a high protein diet.
What happens when you put people on a high protein diet?
The amount of calcium in their urine shoots up,
and indeed that's just what happened.
But here's the big question:
Was that extra calcium in their urine radioactive or not?
And to everyone's surprise it was radioactive.
Meaning, that the excess calcium in their urine
was coming from their diet!
Remember they were feeding them radioactive calcium.
So the excess calcium in their urine wasn't coming from their bones,
but from what they were eating.
What seemed to be happening is that
excess protein consumption boosted calcium absorption,
from down around 19% up to 26%.
So all of a sudden there was all this extra calcium in the blood
so presumably the kidneys are like,
"Whoa what are we going to do with it all?"
So they dump it in the urine.
90% of the extra calcium in the urine after eating a steak
doesn't appear to be coming from our bones but from our diet.
We're not sure why protein boosts calcium absorption.
Maybe the protein increases the solubility of calcium
by stimulating stomach acid production?
Whatever the reason, yes, more calcium lost,
but more calcium gained such that in the end
most of that extra calcium is accounted for.
So in effect more calcium is lost in the urine stream,
but may be compensated by less loss of calcium
through the fecal stream.
This was repeated with even more extreme diets—
an acid-forming five burgers a day worth of animal protein diet
that limited fruits and vegetables
versus an alkaline diet emphasizing fruits and vegetables.
More calcium in the urine on burgers,
but significantly greater calcium absorption
such that at the end it was pretty much a wash.
Other studies have also since supported this interpretation.
Here's an ingenious one:
Feed people a high animal protein diet,
but with an alkali salt to neutralize the acid.
The old thinking would predict that there
would be no calcium loss since there is no excess acid to buffer.
But no! Even though the acid load was neutralized
there was still the excess urinary calcium,
consistent with the radioactive isotope study,
challenging this long-standing dogma that animal protein consumption
results in an acidosis that promotes the excess excretion of calcium.
Finally today, we look at how the galactose in milk
may explain why milk consumption
has been associated with significantly higher risk
of hip fractures, cancer, and premature death.
Milk is touted to build strong bones,
but a compilation of all the best studies found no association
between milk consumption and hip fracture risk,
so drinking milk as an adult might not help bones
but what about in adolescence?
Harvard researchers decided to put it to the test.
Studies have shown that greater milk consumption
during childhood and adolescence contributes to peak bone mass
and is therefore expected to help
avoid osteoporosis and bone fractures in later life.
But that's not what they found.
Milk consumption during teenage years was not associated
with a lower risk of hip fracture.
If anything milk consumption was associated with
a borderline increase in fracture risk in men.
It appears that the extra boost in total body
bone mineral density you get from getting extra calcium
is lost within a few years even if you keep the calcium supplementation up.
This suggests a partial explanation for the long-standing enigma
that hip fracture rates are highest in populations
with the greatest milk consumption.
Maybe an explanation why they’re not lower,
but why would they be higher?
This enigma irked a Swedish research team,
puzzled because studies again and again had shown
a tendency of a higher risk of fracture with a higher intake of milk.
Well there is a rare birth defect called galactosemia,
where babies are born without the enzymes needed
to detoxify the galactose found in milk so they end up
with elevated levels of galactose in their blood,
which can causes bone loss even as kids.
So maybe, the Swedish researchers figured,
even in normal people that can detoxify the stuff,
it might not be good for the bones to be drinking it every day.
And galactose doesn’t just hurt the bones.
That’s what scientists use to cause premature aging in lab animals.
They slip them a little galactose
and you can shorten their lifespan,
cause oxidative stress, inflammation, brain degeneration,
just with the equivalent of like 1-2 glasses of milks worth of galactose a day.
We’re not rats, though—
but given the high amount of galactose in milk,
recommendations to increase milk intake for prevention of fractures
could be a conceivable contradiction,
so they decided to put it to the test,
looking at milk intake and mortality
as well as fracture risk to test their theory.
A hundred thousand men and women
followed for up to 20 years-
what did they find?
Milk drinking women had higher rates
of death, more heart disease, significantly more cancer for each glass of milk.
Three glasses a day was associated with nearly twice the risk of death.
And they had significantly more bone and hip fractures too.
Men in a separate study also had a higher rate
of death with higher milk consumption
but at least they didn’t have higher fracture rates.
So a dose dependent higher rate of both mortality and fracture
in women and a higher rate of mortality in men with milk intake,
but the opposite for other dairy products like soured milk and yogurt,
which would go along with the galactose theory,
since bacteria can ferment away some of the lactose.
To prove it though, we need a randomized controlled trial
to examine the effect of milk intake on mortality and fractures.
As the accompanying editorial pointed out,
we better find this out soon as milk consumption
is on the rise around the world.
We would love it if you could share with us your stories
about reinventing your health through evidence-based nutrition.
Go to nutritionfacts.org/testimonials.
We may share it on our social media to help inspire others.
To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, or studies mentioned here,
please go to the Nutrition Facts Podcast landing page.
There you’ll find all the detailed information you need –
plus, links to all of the sources we cite for each of these topics.
For a vital, timely text on the pathogens that cause pandemics,
order the e-book, audiobook, or hard copy
of my latest book, “How to Survive a Pandemic”.
Or go to your local public library for that matter.
For recipes, check out my new “How Not to Diet Cookbook”.
It’s beautifully designed with more than 100 recipes
for delicious and nutritious meals.
And, of course, all the proceeds I receive from the sales
of all my books goes to charity.
NutritionFacts.org is a nonprofit, science-based public service,
where you can sign up for free daily updates
on the latest in nutrition research via bite-sized videos and articles.
Everything on the website is free.
There’s no ads, no corporate sponsorship,
no kickbacks.
It’s strictly non-commercial. I’m not selling anything.
I just put it up as a public service, as a labor of love,
as a tribute to my grandmother,
whose own life was saved with evidence-based nutrition.