Dose dependency of calcium absorption: A comparison of calcium carbonate and calcium citrate

Dose dependency of calcium absorption: A comparison of calcium carbonate and calcium citrate Calcium supplementation is recommended as a prophylaxis against bone loss. This study was performed to determine the dose dependency of calcium absorption in an attempt to derive an optimum dose schedule. Using the well‐described oral calcium load technique, we measured the calcium absorption from three different calcium doses (0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 g) of both calcium carbonate and calcium citrate administered to 21 normal subjects (4 men and 17 women, 22–60 years). Nine subjects underwent two additional loads with 0.2 g of elemental calcium as calcium carbonate and as calcium citrate. The intestinal calcium absorption from calcium carbonate and calcium citrate was estimated from the rise in urinary calcium following oral ingestion of the respective calcium salt. The increment in urinary calcium post‐load, reflective of intestinal calcium absorption, rose rapidly from 0 to 0.5 g calcium loads with only slight subsequent increases from the 0.5 g to 2.0 g calcium doses. Thus, results indicate that 0.5 g of calcium is the optimum dose of either calcium salt. Moreover, the increment in urinary calcium post‐load was higher from calcium citrate than from calcium carbonate at all four dosage levels. The increment in urinary calcium (during the second 2 hr) following calcium citrate load (0.5 g calcium) was 0.104 ± 0.096 mg/dl glomerular filtrate (GF), which was higher than that of 0.091 ± 0.068 mg/dl GF obtained from 2.0 g calcium as calcium carbonate. These results confirm the superior calcium bioavailability from calcium citrate as compared with calcium carbonate. To confirm findings from the calcium load technique, 9 subjects underwent calcium absorption test from the fecal recovery of orally administered radiolabeled calcium salts (containing 100–200 mg of elemental calcium). Fractional calcium absorption from calcium citrate of 0.402 ± 0.067 was significantly higher than that of 0.314 ± 0.100 obtained from calcium carbonate. Moreover, calcium loading with either salt did not produce significant citraturic effect during 4 hr of study, ruling out “calcium trapping” by citrate in the renal tubule. In conclusion: (1) Both calcium carbonate and calcium citrate display dose dependency of calcium absorption; (2) calcium is more absorbable from calcium citrate than from calcium carbonate at all four doses employed (0.2, 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 g); and (3) calcium absorption from 0.5 g of calcium as calcium citrate is greater than that from 2.0 g of calcium as calcium carbonate. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Bone and Mineral Research Wiley

Dose dependency of calcium absorption: A comparison of calcium carbonate and calcium citrate

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/dose-dependency-of-calcium-absorption-a-comparison-of-calcium-O4XVc0zi5a
Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
Copyright © 1988 ASBMR
ISSN
0884-0431
eISSN
1523-4681
DOI
10.1002/jbmr.5650030303
pmid
3213620
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Calcium supplementation is recommended as a prophylaxis against bone loss. This study was performed to determine the dose dependency of calcium absorption in an attempt to derive an optimum dose schedule. Using the well‐described oral calcium load technique, we measured the calcium absorption from three different calcium doses (0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 g) of both calcium carbonate and calcium citrate administered to 21 normal subjects (4 men and 17 women, 22–60 years). Nine subjects underwent two additional loads with 0.2 g of elemental calcium as calcium carbonate and as calcium citrate. The intestinal calcium absorption from calcium carbonate and calcium citrate was estimated from the rise in urinary calcium following oral ingestion of the respective calcium salt. The increment in urinary calcium post‐load, reflective of intestinal calcium absorption, rose rapidly from 0 to 0.5 g calcium loads with only slight subsequent increases from the 0.5 g to 2.0 g calcium doses. Thus, results indicate that 0.5 g of calcium is the optimum dose of either calcium salt. Moreover, the increment in urinary calcium post‐load was higher from calcium citrate than from calcium carbonate at all four dosage levels. The increment in urinary calcium (during the second 2 hr) following calcium citrate load (0.5 g calcium) was 0.104 ± 0.096 mg/dl glomerular filtrate (GF), which was higher than that of 0.091 ± 0.068 mg/dl GF obtained from 2.0 g calcium as calcium carbonate. These results confirm the superior calcium bioavailability from calcium citrate as compared with calcium carbonate. To confirm findings from the calcium load technique, 9 subjects underwent calcium absorption test from the fecal recovery of orally administered radiolabeled calcium salts (containing 100–200 mg of elemental calcium). Fractional calcium absorption from calcium citrate of 0.402 ± 0.067 was significantly higher than that of 0.314 ± 0.100 obtained from calcium carbonate. Moreover, calcium loading with either salt did not produce significant citraturic effect during 4 hr of study, ruling out “calcium trapping” by citrate in the renal tubule. In conclusion: (1) Both calcium carbonate and calcium citrate display dose dependency of calcium absorption; (2) calcium is more absorbable from calcium citrate than from calcium carbonate at all four doses employed (0.2, 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 g); and (3) calcium absorption from 0.5 g of calcium as calcium citrate is greater than that from 2.0 g of calcium as calcium carbonate.

Journal

Journal of Bone and Mineral ResearchWiley

Published: Jun 1, 1988

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create folders to
organize your research

Export folders, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off