Calcium loss from legbones to concrete floors????
Bob
I've never heard of it.
Standing on cement floors robs the leg bones of calcium. He swears
that people who walk and work on cement floors on a regular and
longterm basis will suffer calcium loss from the leg and foot bones.
Is there any basis for this? through the shoes? I really can't
believe this!
Bob on BC
Lon Stowell
? I thought it only discharged lead acid auto batteries ?
Would think the calcium om the cement would slowly diffuse
into the leg bones rather than out....
Alan J Rosenthal
>Standing on cement floors robs the leg bones of calcium. He swears
>that people who walk and work on cement floors on a regular and
>longterm basis will suffer calcium loss from the leg and foot bones.
I could see this based on the higher physical stress caused to your legs
and feet by walking on very hard surfaces. I don't think it would be a
question of calcium though. If there's any basis to this at all, that is.
I sense a magic of like-materials in this story.
Calcium and cement look similar, right?
Lara
> a coworker hit me with this one the other day, and I must say that
> I've never heard of it.
>
> Standing on cement floors robs the leg bones of calcium. [snip]
I have a lovely image of your bones gradually dissolving and seeping out
through the holes in your shoes.
Casting around for some sort of weird logic to the whole thing, perhaps
your cow orker thought that standing/walking on cement predisposes you
to osteoporosis. In fact the reverse is true - regular weight-bearing
exercise reduces osteoporosis risk.
Lara
TeaLady
news:1fmer1v.1f6ta5z1qpsfl1N%{usenet}@waawa.cx:
> I have a lovely image of your bones gradually dissolving and
> seeping out through the holes in your shoes.
>
>
Which explains all the rubber-legged old-timers who can't stand up,
their legs bend and twist all over the place.
--
Tea"Mayhaps explains those who are said to have no back-bone, as
well ?"Lady (mari)
Sometimes I think I understand everything, then I regain
consciousness.
Mary Shafer Iliff
The body is always moving calcium around in the bones, so
it's probably not oozing out through the shoes or anything.
The calcium comes out of the bone into the blood, floats
around the body for a while, and then comes out of the blood
into another bone.
I do know that load-bearing encourages the body to reinforce
those load-bearing bones with more calcium, so walking on a
firm surface can do that. That is, walking on concrete might
make the leg bones stronger by adding calcium.
I can also tell you that, whether it moves the calcium around
or not, standing and walking on non-resiliant surfaces in shoes
that don't absorb energy will make your feet, knees, and back
hurt like crazy. I discovered this by spending a day walking
around on a tile floor barefooted. By bedtime I could hardly
move. Since then, I've worn running shoes or padded clogs and
the misery has never returned.
If you peek behind the checkstand in supermarkets, etc, you'll
see that the checkers all stand on heavily-padded mats for just
this reason.
Chris Clarke
{usenet}@waawa.cx (Lara) wrote:
> Casting around for some sort of weird logic to the whole thing, perhaps
> your cow orker thought that standing/walking on cement predisposes you
> to osteoporosis.
Stop casting around to osteoporosity!
--
Chris Clarke | Editor, Faultline Magazine
www.faultline.org | California Environmental News and Information
Andy Walton
<sai...@spacemail.com-remove> wrote:
> a coworker hit me with this one the other day, and I must say that
> I've never heard of it.
>
> Standing on cement floors robs the leg bones of calcium. He swears
> that people who walk and work on cement floors on a regular and
> longterm basis will suffer calcium loss from the leg and foot bones.
Sure, but it's not a matter of leeching calcium. Bones are weakened by
the electrical current that cement sucks out of car batteries.
--
"I'm about as tall as a shotgun and just as noisy."
-- Truman Capote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Walton * att...@mindspring.com * http://atticus.home.mindspring.com/
Heinz W. Wiggeshoff
> a coworker hit me with this one the other day, and I must say that
> I've never heard of it.
>
> Standing on cement floors robs the leg bones of calcium.
Absolutely true and known for a long time. Proof? Pay a visit to
Manitoulin Island in Lake Huron. It's a mainly limestone outcrop
which is the northern terminus of the Niagara Escarpment. Visit the
elderly in the retirement homes or those still in the family farm
house, and count how many are in wheel chairs because they can't walk
for having the calcium sucked out of their bones.
Further more, the fish caught near or in Manitoulin are famous for the
easy filleting due to the small bones. Whether it's a one pound perch
or a 20 pound pike, except for the head and spine, it's mostly flesh.
Whenever my family needs appliances cleaned of calcium deposits,
(electric kettles, coffee pots, clothes irons, hot water tanks, etc.)
we take them to the cottage on Manitoulin and soak them in South Bay,
a body of water notorious for calcium suction. To heck with CLR or
similar cleaners.
Lee Ayrton
> a coworker hit me with this one the other day, and I must say that
> I've never heard of it.
>
> Standing on cement floors robs the leg bones of calcium. He swears
> that people who walk and work on cement floors on a regular and
Pet nit number 5: Concrete floors. "Cement" is powdered lime and clay,
mixed with water to make a workable paste that hardens. Add sand to this
and you have mortar. Add gravel and you have concrete. Imbed metal
screens or bars and you have reinforced concrete.
Lee "Collect the whole set!" Ayrton
--
"It's the sort of thing that would have stuck in my mind, had I heard
it." Brett Buck on the power of oral tradition in AFU.
Lon Stowell
> In article <1fmer1v.1f6ta5z1qpsfl1N%{usenet}@waawa.cx>,
> {usenet}@waawa.cx (Lara) wrote:
>
>
>>Casting around for some sort of weird logic to the whole thing, perhaps
>>your cow orker thought that standing/walking on cement predisposes you
>>to osteoporosis.
>
>
> Stop casting around to osteoporosity!
>
Now THAT is an obscure reference!
Ichimusai
[...]
> If you peek behind the checkstand in supermarkets, etc, you'll
> see that the checkers all stand on heavily-padded mats for just
> this reason.
Which made me think of something - Macdonalds here in several places in
Stockholm has a strange slippery floor in the kitchen and behind the
counters. Instead the workers wear different kind of joggers,
sneakers, and sport shoes. I have noticed there is a difference
between those who have a proper rubber sole and those who has a
plastic one.
Those with plastic can hardly stand up right, it looks like they are
skating when they are moving. It's better then TV watching them go at
it.
--
Ichimusai - Thinks of Bambi
Charles A Lieberman
<i3dduuo63t4dlun8n...@4ax.com>
>Standing on cement floors robs the leg bones of calcium. He swears
>that people who walk and work on cement floors on a regular and
>longterm basis will suffer calcium loss from the leg and foot bones.
Uh-oh. I've had sex on a concrete floor.
Charles "Does Viagra help with bone loss?" Lieberman
--
Charles A. Lieberman | "These are physics questions and I don't
Brooklyn, New York, USA | know." -- Simon Slavin, specialist.
http://calieber.tripod.com/ cali...@bigfoot.com
Mary Shafer Iliff
>
> On or about Thu, 28 Nov 2002, Bob of sai...@spacemail.com-remove wrote:
>
> > a coworker hit me with this one the other day, and I must say that
> > I've never heard of it.
> >
> > Standing on cement floors robs the leg bones of calcium. He swears
> > that people who walk and work on cement floors on a regular and
>
> Pet nit number 5: Concrete floors. "Cement" is powdered lime and clay,
> mixed with water to make a workable paste that hardens. Add sand to this
> and you have mortar. Add gravel and you have concrete. Imbed metal
> screens or bars and you have reinforced concrete.
>
> Lee "Collect the whole set!" Ayrton
Pull hard on the ends of the metal rebar and you have prestressed
concrete, without which the set is incomplete.
Mary "Took a tour to Monolith Cement"
Lee
I'm sure they're not claiming that the calcium migrates out into
the floor. Somebody may have suggested that the bones shed some
calcium to become more compressible in response to walking on
hard surfaces all the time. I'm not suggesting that it's true,
just somewhat less silly.
Dr H
On Fri, 29 Nov 2002, Lon Stowell wrote:
}Bob wrote:
}> a coworker hit me with this one the other day, and I must say that
}> I've never heard of it.
}>
}> Standing on cement floors robs the leg bones of calcium. He swears
}> that people who walk and work on cement floors on a regular and
}> longterm basis will suffer calcium loss from the leg and foot bones.
}> Is there any basis for this? through the shoes? I really can't
}> believe this!
}>
}> Bob on BC
}
} ? I thought it only discharged lead acid auto batteries ?
And now we know why: all that calcium picked up from leg bones
leaches into the batteries and neutralizes the sulfuric acid.
Dr H
Dr H
On Fri, 29 Nov 2002, Andy Walton wrote:
}In article <i3dduuo63t4dlun8n...@4ax.com>, Bob
}<sai...@spacemail.com-remove> wrote:
}
}> a coworker hit me with this one the other day, and I must say that
}> I've never heard of it.
}>
}> Standing on cement floors robs the leg bones of calcium. He swears
}> that people who walk and work on cement floors on a regular and
}> longterm basis will suffer calcium loss from the leg and foot bones.
}
}Sure, but it's not a matter of leeching calcium. Bones are weakened by
}the electrical current that cement sucks out of car batteries.
Shit. That blows my theory about the batteries...
Dr H
Hugh Gibbons
At what point do you leave the realm of Urban Legendry and enter the
realm of Paranoid Delusion?
Lee
Since your response doesn't seem to make any sense,
I suppose I shouldn't take offense, but isn't the
suggestion that the constant flux of calcium in and
out of bone tissue might be influenced by the force
of impacts on the bones just a tad bit *less* delusional
than suggesting that people might believe that calcium
leaches through your shoes and into the concrete?
Hugh Gibbons
> Hugh said:
>>> I'm sure they're not claiming that the calcium migrates out into
>>> the floor. Somebody may have suggested that the bones shed some
>>> calcium to become more compressible in response to walking on
>>> hard surfaces all the time. I'm not suggesting that it's true,
>>> just somewhat less silly.
>>
>>At what point do you leave the realm of Urban Legendry and enter the
>>realm of Paranoid Delusion?
>
> Since your response doesn't seem to make any sense,
> I suppose I shouldn't take offense, but isn't the
> suggestion that the constant flux of calcium in and
> out of bone tissue might be influenced by the force
> of impacts on the bones just a tad bit *less* delusional
> than suggesting that people might believe that calcium
> leaches through your shoes and into the concrete?
Actually, I was referring to the "leeches through your
shoes" hypothesis, etc. The impact on bone tissue is
merely pseudoscientific. If anything, I (though likely
not others) would expect an increase in bone density from
walking around on concrete floors, because I'd expect the
stress due to the concrete floors to mimic the stess
caused by exercise. Exercise increases bone density.
Chris Clarke
Hugh Gibbons <hgib...@x-remove-xaxs4u.net> wrote:
> Actually, I was referring to the "leeches through your
> shoes" hypothesis, etc.
Never wear sandals into a swamp.
Bob
the satire was appreciated also....)
I still remain as confused and as skeptical as before, 1 resounding
yes, a bunch of what-if's and maybes and how comes and plenty of
skepticism.
I think this is an urban legend born out of modern times, considering
how long "concrete" has been around (apologies for referring to it as
'cement')
Bob
Bob Beck
> I think this is an urban legend born out of modern times, considering
> how long "concrete" has been around (apologies for referring to it as
> 'cement')
You may be right that the 'legend' is new. But concrete has been around a
long time -- though not the kind made with Portland cement, which was
invented ca. 1820 or so. The Romans used lots of concrete, for
example. But it didn't last because... well, it wouldn't, would it?
bob "it's wet sand, I tell you! concrete is wet sand!" 'lance
--
Thank you. I'm quite tired today, and there's a certain refreshing -
indeed, bracing - quality to your stupidity. I'm in your debt.
(Chris Clarke, alt.folklore.urban)
John Schmitt
>You may be right that the 'legend' is new. But concrete has been around a
>long time -- though not the kind made with Portland cement, which was
>invented ca. 1820 or so. The Romans used lots of concrete, for
>example. But it didn't last because... well, it wouldn't, would it?
Actually, the concrete the Romans had lasts extremely well. They
burned either seashells (after the occupants had been eaten) or
limestone or marble to make lime and then mixed it with pozzolan
(a type of volcanic tufa) ground up and then aggregate. I have
personally seen concrete about 2000 years old, and it is still
good. I am personally shocked, shocked, I tell you, to see that
there is actually a website called:
Much of the damage to some of the Roman antiquities was by the
looting of building materials after their empire collapsed. In
St. Albans, a city just north of London, the red terracotta tiles
from the ancient Roman city of Verulamium (which was in about the
same place) can be seen in the older buildings as part of the
walls. There are virtually no statues left, as they were made of
marble and were burnt for lime to make mortar with. If you are
passing it is worth a visit. On Sundays, the model boaters use
the lake and you can either watch the slow ones or the speed
boats which are mental machines which touch 100 mph.
John "I have concrete evidence" Schmitt
As iron rusts when not used and water gets foul from standing or
turns to ice, so the intellect degenerates without exercise.
-- Leonardo da Vinci
Nick Spalding
> In article <asp3jh$bnp$2...@luna.vcn.bc.ca>, Bob Beck <rb...@vcn.bc.ca> writes:
>
> >You may be right that the 'legend' is new. But concrete has been around a
> >long time -- though not the kind made with Portland cement, which was
> >invented ca. 1820 or so. The Romans used lots of concrete, for
> >example. But it didn't last because... well, it wouldn't, would it?
>
> Actually, the concrete the Romans had lasts extremely well. They
> burned either seashells (after the occupants had been eaten) or
> limestone or marble to make lime and then mixed it with pozzolan
> (a type of volcanic tufa) ground up and then aggregate. I have
> personally seen concrete about 2000 years old, and it is still
> good. I am personally shocked, shocked, I tell you, to see that
> there is actually a website called:
>
> www.romanconcrete.com
>
> Much of the damage to some of the Roman antiquities was by the
> looting of building materials after their empire collapsed. In
> St. Albans, a city just north of London, the red terracotta tiles
> from the ancient Roman city of Verulamium (which was in about the
> same place) can be seen in the older buildings as part of the
> walls. There are virtually no statues left, as they were made of
> marble and were burnt for lime to make mortar with. If you are
> passing it is worth a visit. On Sundays, the model boaters use
> the lake and you can either watch the slow ones or the speed
> boats which are mental machines which touch 100 mph.
The most impressive bit of Roman concrete I know of is the dome of the
Pantheon in Rome. A single concrete hemispherical shell 142 ft
diameter, built between 118 & 128 AD and still as good as the day it
was completed. The building was converted to a church in 609 AD and
has survived with all the original fittings intact, including bronze
doors 24 ft high.
--
Nick Spalding
TMOliver
While the Baths of Caracella have not survived in as pristine a
condition as that enjoyed by the Pantheon, the broken vaulting
provides a pretty graphic illustration of Roman use of concrete
for complex structures. Roman builders of the period would have
likely viewed Gothic cathedrals as little more than fragile
piles of stone held together only because each bit leaned
heavily upon another.
TM"Local restaurant(now defunct): Leaning Tower of Pizza"Oliver
John Schmitt
Nick Spalding <spal...@iol.ie> writes:
>The most impressive bit of Roman concrete I know of is the dome of the
>Pantheon in Rome. A single concrete hemispherical shell 142 ft
>diameter, built between 118 & 128 AD and still as good as the day it
>was completed. The building was converted to a church in 609 AD and
>has survived with all the original fittings intact, including bronze
>doors 24 ft high.
It was about a millennium and a half until Brunelleschi surpassed
it, and even today there are only a small handful of domes to
exceed it, St. Paul's in London and St' Peter's in Rome being
the only ones that come to mind. I suppose the Millennium dome
might count, but I doubt it will have a remotely comparable
permanence. A shame, really, <BoP> because I personally paid
quite a large amount of tax toward the financial black hole it
turned out to be. I got a discount ticket so UKP 7 paid for my
entry and the guidebook. The proper price was UKP 24 for that, I
think I would have cried at having spent the money on such a
dissappointment. The sole redeeming features were the aerial
ballet and the travel zone which Ford has actually spent a bit of
money on.
John "it's still there costing me money, dammit" Schmitt
Nick Spalding
> In article <g2a1vu4v5107uuhjo...@4ax.com>,
> Nick Spalding <spal...@iol.ie> writes:
>
> >The most impressive bit of Roman concrete I know of is the dome of the
> >Pantheon in Rome. A single concrete hemispherical shell 142 ft
> >diameter, built between 118 & 128 AD and still as good as the day it
> >was completed. The building was converted to a church in 609 AD and
> >has survived with all the original fittings intact, including bronze
> >doors 24 ft high.
>
> It was about a millennium and a half until Brunelleschi surpassed
> it, and even today there are only a small handful of domes to
> exceed it, St. Paul's in London and St' Peter's in Rome being
> the only ones that come to mind. I suppose the Millennium dome
> might count, but I doubt it will have a remotely comparable
> permanence. A shame, really, <BoP> because I personally paid
> quite a large amount of tax toward the financial black hole it
> turned out to be. I got a discount ticket so UKP 7 paid for my
> entry and the guidebook. The proper price was UKP 24 for that, I
> think I would have cried at having spent the money on such a
> dissappointment. The sole redeeming features were the aerial
> ballet and the travel zone which Ford has actually spent a bit of
> money on.
The millennium dome is barely a dome at all. It is supported in much
the same way as a circus big top, by a load of posts sticking up
through it.
--
Nick Spalding
Simon Slavin
Bob <sai...@spacemail.com-remove> wrote:
>I still remain as confused and as skeptical as before
My work here is done.
Norm Soley
> The most impressive bit of Roman concrete I know of is the dome of the
> Pantheon in Rome. A single concrete hemispherical shell 142 ft
> diameter, built between 118 & 128 AD and still as good as the day it
> was completed. The building was converted to a church in 609 AD and
> has survived with all the original fittings intact, including bronze
> doors 24 ft high.
Not all the fittings, it's actually a fairly spare looking interior these days
because a lot of the brass decoration was looted and melted to make
the altar that's now in St. Peter's
--
Norm Soley, just some guy
Would you please call my lawyers and tell 'em that my ISP is attglobal.net
Bob Beck
> In article <asp3jh$bnp$2...@luna.vcn.bc.ca>, Bob Beck <rb...@vcn.bc.ca> writes:
>>You may be right that the 'legend' is new. But concrete has been around a
>>long time -- though not the kind made with Portland cement, which was
>>invented ca. 1820 or so. The Romans used lots of concrete, for
>>example. But it didn't last because... well, it wouldn't, would it?
> Actually, the concrete the Romans had lasts extremely well. They
> burned either seashells (after the occupants had been eaten) or
> limestone or marble to make lime and then mixed it with pozzolan
> (a type of volcanic tufa) ground up and then aggregate. I have
> personally seen concrete about 2000 years old, and it is still
> good. I am personally shocked, shocked, I tell you, to see that
> there is actually a website called:
I'm not shocked at all by the existence of the website. As to the
longevity, I was misled -- misled, I tell you! -- by one of those
semi-animated programs starring the voice of Brian Blessed. I stand
corrected.
bob "on concrete, as it happens" beck
Hugh Gibbons
> "Nick Spalding" <spal...@iol.ie> wrote in message news:
> g2a1vu4v5107uuhjo...@4ax.com...
>> The most impressive bit of Roman concrete I know of is the dome of
>> the Pantheon in Rome. A single concrete hemispherical shell 142 ft
>> diameter, built between 118 & 128 AD and still as good as the day it
>> was completed. The building was converted to a church in 609 AD and
>> has survived with all the original fittings intact, including bronze
>> doors 24 ft high.
>
> Not all the fittings, it's actually a fairly spare looking interior
> these days because a lot of the brass decoration was looted and melted
> to make the altar that's now in St. Peter's
Not looted. Borrowed. They're going to give it back when they're done
using it.
Crashj
Along with all the marble bits and pieces. According to the Discovery Channel.
Crashj 'Archeologist==a grave robber with a degree' Johnson
ctbishop
lay...@sea.ntplx.net wrote:
>
>Pet nit number 5: Concrete floors. "Cement" is powdered lime and clay,
>mixed with water to make a workable paste that hardens. Add sand to this
>and you have mortar. Add gravel and you have concrete. Imbed metal
>screens or bars and you have reinforced concrete.
>
>
>Lee "Collect the whole set!" Ayrton
Tension the metal bars and you have pre-stressed concrete.
Charles
Greg Franklin
"Mary Shafer Iliff" <mil...@qnet.com> wrote in message
news:3DE6F194...@qnet.com...
> I can also tell you that, whether it moves the calcium around
> or not, standing and walking on non-resiliant surfaces in shoes
> that don't absorb energy will make your feet, knees, and back
> hurt like crazy. I discovered this by spending a day walking
> around on a tile floor barefooted. By bedtime I could hardly
> move. Since then, I've worn running shoes or padded clogs and
> the misery has never returned.
>
> If you peek behind the checkstand in supermarkets, etc, you'll
> see that the checkers all stand on heavily-padded mats for just
> this reason.
I'm familiar with this phenomenon through athletics. The roughly 35-year
period where big-time USonian pro / college / high-school sports were played
on Astroturf surfaces (thin green rug on top of a concrete base) is on the
verge of ending.
Mary's anecdote brought up an impression of mine, that athletes for years
have been claiming these surfaces are terrible and have been mostly ignored,
but it was only when the *coaches* began complaining about back and leg
soreness after standing on Astroturf for 3-4 hours at a time that
teams/schools took action.
The only scientific / legendary angle I can report is that a large majority
of athletes when polled are of the belief that Astroturf leads to more
injuries (blown out knees, turf toe, rug burns, torn knee ligaments and the
like) than grass surfaces. In fact, various studies of injury rates
apparently seem to find little difference between grass and Astroturf.
Well, let me unload some links.
The Fieldturf propaganda: (They make a competing artificial surface using a
sand and rubber base topped with artificial grass blades.)
http://www.fieldturf.com/nav.cfm?page=safest
The Astroturf propaganda:
http://www.astroturf.com/playerinjuries.htm
http://www.astroturf.com/abrasions.htm
The TurfLady (tm) sez "Current studies continue to reinforce our position
that well maintained playing surfaces, both natural and synthetic, are, at
most, only minor factors in sports injury frequency and severity."
http://www.turflady.com/safety.htm
Another researcher reports the difference is real but overstated:
http://www.hhp.ufl.edu/keepingfit/ARTICLE/turf.HTM
Athletic Field Surfaces: New Products, Old Questions
http://www.physsportsmed.com/issues/1999/10_01_99/news.htm
General clippings:
"Turf Wars" - safety concerns are a big part of marketing this stuff
http://www.inc.com/articles/leadership_strat/grow_biz/r_and_d/16855.html
Abstracts from newspaper articles
http://www.roundrockisd.org/rrweb/bondturfa-news.htm
Abstracts of 16-17 inconclusive (of the "further research is needed" ilk)
studies
http://www.roundrockisd.org/rrweb/bondturfa-stud.htm
Anyway this is interesting to me because my lo-cal soccer field is in the
process of replacing its chewed up grass surface with FieldTurf. I'll have a
chance to field-test the thing next month.
Greg "not taste-testing it" Franklin
Hugh Gibbons
> Anyway this is interesting to me because my lo-cal soccer field is in
> the process of replacing its chewed up grass surface with FieldTurf.
> I'll have a chance to field-test the thing next month.
FieldTurf is not bad. I find it not as nice as real grass that's
well maintained, but nicer than packed-down dirt baked by the merciless
sun to the consistency of an adobe brick, and distinctly nicer on the
feet and eyes than AstroTurf.