>Dear all,
>
>I've just heard about "coral calcium" which is supposed to be a more
>bio-available form of nutritional supplement.
>
>As an RN, I'm curious about whether there are any studies at all on this
>claim. A cursory check only turned up many outfits selling this product.
>There's a statement by one doctor to the effect that there's no evidence of
>coral calcium being more beneficial--and it's on a page sponsored by a
>business selling the conventional calcium supplement.
>
>On some of the product pages, there are claims that they use only
>above-sea-level fossilized coral, which is in more bio-available (allegedly)
>aragonite form. Other coral calcium apparently has been mined from living
>reefs or below the reefs.
>
>This all sounds a little bizarre and like another threat to marine habitats.
>
>(Who knows, now there's robust evidence that fish oil supplements are
>beneficial for cardiovascular health).
>
>David Kirsh
>Durham, NC

Aragonite is slightly less stable than calcite (most shells are
largely composed of aragonite, though osterids, anomiids, limids,
pectinids, propeamussiids, mytilids, isognomonids, epitoniids and
janthinids are calcitic).

But I very much doubt that either form of calcium carbonate is any
more digestible in stomach acid  than the other... and coral
aragonite (or calcite) certainly no more so than molluscan or
artificially-produced!

It sounds like more of the moronic "organic" produce thing (when did
you last eat an inorganic orange?).
--
Andrew Grebneff
165 Evans St, Dunedin 9001, New Zealand
<[log in to unmask]>
Seashell, Macintosh, VW/Toyota van nut