I am intolerant to meat and milk products, but purely natural foods don't contain enough calcium for the Recommended Daily Intake. Links 2 to 4 (but NOT 1) avouch a correlation between calcium supplements and disease.
From [1. WebMD], "Keep in mind that there's really not that much difference between getting calcium in a supplement and calcium in food."
"Calcium-fortified foods -- such as cereals, some juices, and soy milk -- are excellent sources of the mineral, experts tell WebMD."
From [2. health.harvard.edu]: An 8-ounce portion of off-the-shelf orange juice contains about 300 mg of calcium. The calcium in fortified soy milk also compares favorably to whole milk. Breakfast cereals (which are also fortified) contain substantial amounts of calcium, especially when combined with low-fat milk. A portion of oatmeal on its own contains just 100 mg of calcium. “But if you cut up some dried figs and add it to a bowl of oatmeal with milk, you easily get about half of what you need without having any supplements,” Dr. Hauser says.
The calcium supplements in question list their ingredients as only either calcium citrate or calcium carbonate. In question of them, I then meticulously perused the ingredients of fortified orange juice, soy milk, rice milk, and cereals. However, I noticed from the listed ingredients that calcium carbonate appeared to be the sole one containing calcium.
1. How and why would the calcium carbonate from calcium supplements be averred as worse than that in the putatively better fortified foods?
2. Isn't solid calcium carbonate (eg in supplements) chemically the same as aqueous calcium carbonate (eg in fortified drinks)?
3. Are calcium supplements truly worse than fortified foods with calcium?