How Calcium Became a Supplement: Shell, Antacids and Bone Trials

Calcium reached the supplement shelf through shell remedies, ulcer powders and milk-alkali regimens before bone trials. This article follows the record from Pliny and Ayurvedic shell preparation to the WHI and RECORD trials, with the regulators side by side.

Calcium reached the supplement shelf through the stomach, not the skeleton. The calcium-rich materials people swallowed are far older than the trials that test them, and the large bone trials this article covers date to the 2000s. The short answer is that calcium's medical history runs through shell, stone and ulcer treatment first, and through bone-density science second. Calcined oyster shell is an old remedy. Pliny's *Natural History* describes it, and a 2026 study of a classical Chinese formula still lists two shell and bone materials among its ingredients. The surprise runs the other way. In a 2010 case report, the authors wrote that milk-alkali syndrome, a condition tied to an old ulcer regimen, "is currently the third most common cause of hypercalcemia." Calcium overload from antacid-type products is not a museum piece. ## In this article - Where the calcium came from - The oldest records: Chinese, Ayurvedic, Kampo and Unani texts - Roman and Greek shell remedies - Rickets, cod-liver oil and the vitamin D detour - Milk, alkali and the ulcer regimen - Humphry Davy's 1808 paper and the metals of the earths - How the science changed, and the 1994 NIH panel - The trials, country by country - The regulators, side by side - What is still disputed - What makes this history interesting - The product, and what its label says - Frequently asked questions - Where the record is thin ## Where the calcium came from None of the materials in this section is pure calcium metal. Each is a salt or a mineral mixture, and the form of each one shapes how much calcium a dose delivers. Shell is the clearest example. A 2018 study of an Ayurvedic preparation made from conch shell describes the shell as "a marine resource of calcium carbonate." The same study says the material was converted from its aragonite form to calcite by grinding, trituration with aloe vera juice and incineration under controlled conditions. According to PubMed, that is the process the authors documented for shankha bhasma, the calcined conch preparation ([Chavan et al. 2018](https://doi.org/10.3390/md16110450)). Bone is the second source. The 2026 Chinese formula study lists *Os Draconis*, the material whose name translates to "dragon bone," next to *Concha Ostreae*, or oyster shell ([Li et al. 2026](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2026.121974)). The paper does not describe the bone's composition, so this article does not either. Food is the third source. The NIH Office of Dietary Supplements lists milk, yogurt and cheese, kale, broccoli and Chinese cabbage, canned sardines and salmon with the bones, fortified juices and soy or almond drinks, tofu and fortified cereal ([NIH ODS calcium fact sheet](https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Calcium-HealthProfessional/)). A fourth source is marine algae. Aquamin is described as a "calcium-rich multi-mineral supplement derived from the red marine algae," in a 2020 paper whose authors are affiliated with Marigot Ltd. in Cork, Ireland ([Felice et al. 2020](https://doi.org/10.1089/jmf.2020.0099)). The abstract does not name the algae species. The compound a shopper buys matters for dose. The NIH fact sheet says calcium carbonate is 40% calcium by weight and calcium citrate is 21%. A citrate capsule therefore carries less calcium per gram than a carbonate tablet, which is part of the story told later in this article. For the magnesium side of a calcium label, start with the [magnesium monograph](/ingredients/magnesium). ## The oldest records: Chinese, Ayurvedic, Kampo and Unani texts The earliest Chinese materia medica in this record is the *Shennong Bencao Jing*. A University of California Press excerpt from a translation of the later *Bencao Gangmu* says that "historians agree that it was written at some time between the 1st century BCE and the 1st century CE." The same excerpt counts 365 entries, 141 in the upper rank, 111 in the middle rank and 103 in the lower rank. Other sources give later dates, so the span is contested. The excerpt cites Paul Unschuld's 1986 *Medicine in China* for its historical background. The entries for dragon bone and oyster shell in that text are not quoted here, so their grade and indications are not given. The compiler of the *Bencao Gangmu*, Li Shizhen, lived from 1518 to 1593 according to the same excerpt. That is the only date this article gives for his work. A 2026 paper in the *Journal of Ethnopharmacology* gives a clearer picture of how the two materials are used in Chinese medicine today. It describes a classical formula, Chaihu-Longgu-Muli Decoction, as coming from the *Shanghan Lun* and containing *Os Draconis* and *Concha Ostreae*. According to PubMed, the paper says the formula was traditionally used to harmonize the Shaoyang, calm the spirit, and treat emotional disturbances and insomnia tied to liver qi stagnation ([Li et al. 2026](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2026.121974)). Its experiments were in mice, and this article reports the tradition only. The date of the *Shanghan Lun* is uncertain, so this article gives none. Ayurveda's surgical text, the *Sushruta Samhita*, is dated differently by two reviews. A 2010 anatomy review places the text's anatomical material in the 6th century BCE ([Loukas et al. 2010](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7580.2010.01294.x)). A 2011 pediatric surgery review gives the compilation as circa 1200 to 600 BC ([Raveenthiran 2011](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2011.07.007)). The *Charaka Samhita*, the other core Ayurvedic text, is not dated here; its date is uncertain. The dates and recommended uses of the classical texts that describe shankha (conch) and pravala (coral) preparations are not given here. The 2018 process study cited above is the only Ayurvedic shell source this article relies on. Japanese Kampo still uses both materials. A 2023 package insert from a Japanese manufacturer lists "JP Oyster Shell" and "JP Longgu" among the crude drugs in a Kampo formula. That is a current label, not a classical text, and this article does not draw on the classical Kampo sources. Korea's classical compendium, *Dongui Bogam*, is not quoted here. Islamic medicine has a parallel record that this article documents only in part. According to PubMed, a 2012 review in *Gesnerus* says the second book of Ibn Sina's *Canon of Medicine* covers simple medicines and ends with a pharmacopoeia ([Ayari-Lassueur 2012](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23923337/)). No passage on shell, coral or chalk preparations in the Canon is cited here, so none is claimed. The Canon is included because it belongs to the same medical tradition as the Ayurvedic and Chinese texts above, not because a shell use is recorded in it. ## Roman and Greek shell remedies The clearest Roman entry is Pliny the Elder's *Natural History*, Book 32, chapter 21, in the Bostock and Riley translation hosted by [Perseus](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0137:book%3D32:chapter%3D21). Pliny writes that "calcined oyster-shells, mixed with honey, allay affections of the uvula and of the tonsillary glands." He adds that "they are sprinkled, too, upon burns, and are highly esteemed as a dentifrice," and that "beaten up in a raw state, they are curative of scrofula and of chilblains upon the feet." Those are three different uses for one material: a throat remedy, a burn dressing and a tooth powder. Pliny's list is a Roman encyclopedist's list, not a clinical study, and the article quotes it as history. Dioscorides' *De Materia Medica* is the other obvious Greek source for burnt shell and a chalk-like earth, but this article does not say what it records on either. No Greek or Roman chalk use is stated here. ## Rickets, cod-liver oil and the vitamin D detour Calcium supplements are often told as a bone story, but the rickets story is where bone and vitamin science met. According to PubMed, a 2003 historical review in *Pediatrics* says that "at the turn of the 20th century, rickets was rampant among the poor children living in the industrialized and polluted northern cities of the United States" ([Rajakumar 2003](https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.112.2.e132)). The same review credits the 1650 treatise of Frances Glisson with a detailed description of the clinical and anatomic features of rickets. The review also says the cause of rickets stayed unclear until the 1920s. The cure it traces runs through cod-liver oil and sunlight. Its abstract says the anti-rachitic properties of cod-liver oil were delineated by the 1930s, and that this made it possible to treat and, in the United States, to eradicate the disease. That is the detour the rest of this article keeps returning to. The review's account of rickets runs through diet, sunlight and cod-liver oil before it reaches vitamin D. The trials discussed below test calcium on its own and in combination with vitamin D, which is one reason the two topics cannot be separated. Readers who want the vitamin D side can start with [the full vitamin D guide](/health/vitamin-d-complete-guide), the [vitamin D3 monograph](/ingredients/vitamin-d3-cholecalciferol), and an earlier [blog post on vitamin D3](/blog/immune-support/vitamin-d3-the-sunshine-vitamin). ## Milk, alkali and the ulcer regimen The clearest medical record of calcium overload comes from an ulcer treatment. According to PubMed, a 2010 case report describes milk-alkali syndrome as having "developed as an adverse reaction to the Sippy regimen of milk, cream and alkaline powders as treatment for peptic ulcer disease" ([Ulett et al. 2010](https://doi.org/10.1002/jhm.579)). The classic picture is hypercalcemia, metabolic alkalosis and renal failure. The case was a 46-year-old man whose total serum calcium was 15.9 mg/dL. The team excluded hyperparathyroidism and malignancy first. He recovered with hydration and by stopping his calcium carbonate. The authors also say the syndrome has returned as calcium-containing supplement use has grown, and that it is "currently the third most common cause of hypercalcemia." The Sippy regimen is not dated here; the record gives no year. The point that survives is the mechanism. A product that puts a large calcium load into the gut can raise blood calcium, and the case report treats that as a current risk, not a museum example. ## Humphry Davy's 1808 paper and the metals of the earths The Wellcome Collection holds a 1894 Edinburgh reprint of a paper from *Philosophical Transactions* for 1808, volume 98. Its catalogue notes list "Electro-chemical researches, on the decomposition of the earths; with observations on the metals obtained from the alkaline earths, and on the amalgam procured from ammonia" by Humphry Davy ([Wellcome Collection record](https://wellcomecollection.org/works/zc6xmg55)). That is the earliest paper in the record that reports metals obtained from the alkaline earths. The catalogue record does not name calcium among those metals. This article therefore does not credit Davy with a specific calcium isolation, and the common claim that he isolated calcium in 1808 is not stated here. The market history is also a gap. The record describes medical use, ulcer regimens and trials. It does not describe early calcium products, patents, manufacturers or pharmacy launches, so those details are not stated here. The next sections move from chemistry and medicine to the trials and the regulatory numbers. ## How the science changed, and the 1994 NIH panel The argument moved in four steps. First came the ulcer-powder problem, where calcium was a treatment and sometimes a hazard. Then came rickets, where the cure was cod-liver oil and sunlight. Then came bone density, where the question was how much a supplement could move the scan. Last came fractures and heart events, where the question became whether the supplement changed outcomes people feel. The 1994 NIH consensus conference is the hinge. According to PubMed, its report was published in *JAMA* in December 1994 under the title "NIH Consensus conference. Optimal calcium intake" ([NIH Consensus Development Panel 1994](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7990248/)). The PubMed record does not carry an abstract, and its subject terms cover calcium intake across life stages without an osteoporosis term. This article uses the title as published. The panel's recommended intakes are not quoted here. The trial record follows that order. The Japanese trial and the WHI bone-density results come first, then the fracture trials (RECORD in 2005, WHI in 2006, and the 2007 meta-analysis), and then the heart-event question that the 2010 meta-analysis raised. ## The trials, country by country **United States.** According to PubMed, the Women's Health Initiative trial randomized 36,282 postmenopausal women aged 50 to 79 to 1,000 mg of elemental calcium as calcium carbonate with 400 IU of vitamin D3 daily, or to placebo. Fractures were followed for an average of 7.0 years ([Jackson et al. 2006](https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa055218)). Hip bone density was 1.06% higher in the supplement group. The hazard ratio for hip fracture was 0.88 (95% confidence interval 0.72 to 1.08), so the reduction was not statistically significant. The risk of kidney stones rose, with a hazard ratio of 1.17 (1.02 to 1.34). The authors concluded that calcium with vitamin D "resulted in a small but significant improvement in hip bone density, did not significantly reduce hip fracture, and increased the risk of kidney stones." **United Kingdom.** The Randomised Evaluation of Calcium Or vitamin D trial, known as RECORD, enrolled 5,292 people aged 70 and over who had a low-trauma fracture, in 21 UK hospitals. Participants were randomized to 800 IU of vitamin D3, 1,000 mg of calcium, both, or placebo. According to PubMed, the hazard ratio for new low-trauma fractures with calcium was 0.94 (0.81 to 1.09). The authors wrote that the findings "do not support routine oral supplementation with calcium and vitamin D3, either alone or in combination, for the prevention of further fractures in previously mobile elderly people" ([Grant et al. 2005](https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(05)63013-9)). Compliance with calcium tablets was lower, by a 9.4% difference, partly because of gastrointestinal symptoms. **Japan.** A 2012 randomized trial in Japan recruited 450 women aged 50 to 75 and assigned them to 500 mg of calcium as carbonate, 250 mg of calcium, or placebo each day for two years. Average total daily calcium intake at baseline was 493 mg among the 418 women followed up. In the intention-to-treat analysis, spinal bone density fell 1.2% less in the 500 mg group than in placebo over two years (p equals 0.027). The authors concluded that 500 mg a day "can effectively slow lumbar spine bone loss" in women with habitually low calcium intake, while the effect on the femoral neck "is less certain" ([Nakamura et al. 2012](https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.1676)). Their introduction also notes that standard doses of 1,000 mg a day "may increase the risk for cardiovascular events," which is why the lower dose was tested. **China.** The Chinese-authored evidence in this record includes a 2025 meta-analysis from authors at Chinese universities, including Shenzhen Polytechnic University and Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine. According to PubMed, it pooled 13 randomized trials in postmenopausal women and compared exercise added to calcium and vitamin D with calcium and vitamin D alone. Combined interventions significantly increased lumbar spine bone density (standardized mean difference 0.31) and femoral neck density (0.47) ([Bai et al. 2025](https://doi.org/10.3390/nu17243866)). That review is not a calcium-only trial, so it is reported as a current Chinese-authored result, not as a test of calcium by itself. **Pooled evidence.** A 2007 *Lancet* meta-analysis pooled 29 randomized trials of 63,897 people aged 50 and older. According to PubMed, its 17 fracture trials showed a 12% reduction in fractures of all types with calcium, with or without vitamin D (risk ratio 0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.83 to 0.95). The effect was larger at calcium doses of 1,200 mg or more (0.80) than below that level (0.94) ([Tang et al. 2007](https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61342-7)). The two large trials above did not show a significant fracture reduction, and the next sections set out why that matters. A 2015 *BMJ* meta-analysis of 59 randomized trials put a number on the bone-density side. According to PubMed, supplements raised bone mineral density by 0.7% to 1.8% at all five skeletal sites measured, and the authors described these as "small non-progressive increases in BMD, which are unlikely to lead to a clinically significant reduction in risk of fracture" ([Tai et al. 2015](https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h4183)). Globally, intake is far from uniform. A 2017 systematic review of national dietary data reported average calcium intake ranging from 175 to 1,233 mg a day across 74 countries ([Balk et al. 2017](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29026938/)). The spread is wide, and the next section compares what national and regional bodies recommend. ## The regulators, side by side The table reports what each body published and when, as far as the record shows. It does not rank the bodies against each other. | Body | Year | Adult figure | What the source says | Source | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | NIH Office of Dietary Supplements, United States | Current fact sheet, citing the 2011 Institute of Medicine values | RDA of 1,000 mg a day at ages 19 to 50; 1,000 mg for men and 1,200 mg for women at 51 to 70; 1,200 mg above 70 | Tolerable upper intake of 2,500 mg a day at 19 to 50, and 2,000 mg from 51 | [NIH ODS fact sheet](https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Calcium-HealthProfessional/) | | European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) | 2015 scientific opinion | Population reference intake of 950 mg a day for adults 25 and over; average requirement of 750 mg a day; reference intake of 1,000 mg a day for ages 18 to 24 | The abstract gives these figures. EFSA's separate upper-limit opinion is not covered here | [EFSA Journal 2015](https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/4101) | | UK Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) | 2021 report on older adults | Reference nutrient intake of 700 mg a day and lower reference nutrient intake of 400 mg a day, at ages 65 to 74 and 75 and over | The footnote traces the values to the 1991 COMA report. No separate 2011 calcium report is cited here | [SACN report on older adults](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/953911/SACN_Nutrition_and_older_adults.pdf) | | NIH Consensus Development Conference, United States | 1994, published in *JAMA* in December | Recommended intakes are not quoted here | The title is "Optimal calcium intake," not an osteoporosis title | [PubMed record](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7990248/) | The adult figures in the table run from 700 mg a day, the UK value for older adults, to 1,000 mg a day, the US value at 19 to 50. EFSA's 950 mg a day sits between them. The figures cover different ages, so the table is not a like-for-like comparison. The disagreement is clearest for older women. The US fact sheet sets 1,200 mg a day for women from 51 to 70 and above 70, while the UK older-adult value stays at 700 mg a day. The record does not explain the gap. ## What is still disputed **Fractures.** The fracture question is where the large trials and the pooled analyses part ways. The 2006 WHI trial found a hazard ratio of 0.88 for hip fracture, which was not statistically significant, and 0.96 for total fractures, also not significant. RECORD found a hazard ratio of 0.94 for new low-trauma fractures with calcium. The 2007 meta-analysis of 17 fracture trials reported a 12% reduction in fractures of all types. The pooled result and the two large trials point in different directions, and this article reports both without deciding between them. **Bone density.** The bone-density gains are real but small. The 2015 *BMJ* review found increases of 0.7% to 1.8% with supplements, and its authors wrote that these gains are "unlikely to lead to a clinically significant reduction in risk of fracture." The 2012 Japanese trial found a benefit at 500 mg a day on the lumbar spine and called the femoral neck result less certain. **Heart events.** The 2010 *BMJ* meta-analysis asked a different question. In five trials with patient-level data, covering 8,151 people, 143 people given calcium had a myocardial infarction, against 111 given placebo. The hazard ratio was 1.31 (95% confidence interval 1.02 to 1.67). A trial-level analysis of 11 more trials gave a pooled relative risk of 1.27 (1.01 to 1.59). The authors wrote that calcium supplements without coadministered vitamin D "are associated with an increased risk of myocardial infarction," and that the role of calcium supplements in managing osteoporosis needs reassessing ([Bolland et al. 2010](https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c3691)). **Side effects and compliance.** The WHI trial recorded the kidney-stone rise described above. RECORD recorded lower compliance with calcium tablets, partly because of gastrointestinal symptoms. **Citrate and carbonate.** The absorption question is the one that short studies answer most clearly. The 1999 meta-analysis of 15 absorption studies found absorption from citrate 20.0% higher overall, 27.2% higher on an empty stomach and 21.6% higher with meals ([Sakhaee et al. 1999](https://doi.org/10.1097/00045391-199911000-00005)). The NIH fact sheet says citrate depends less on stomach acid than carbonate does, so it can be taken without food. These are absorption studies, not fracture trials, and they say nothing about fracture outcomes. **Ayurvedic and other preparations.** The metal question is the one least like the trials. Of 230 Ayurvedic medicines requested online in 2005, 193 arrived and were analyzed, and 20.7% contained detectable metals. Products made by the rasa shastra method, which combines herbs with metals, minerals and gems, had more metals (40.6%) than other products (17.1%). The authors wrote that every metal-containing product exceeded at least one standard for acceptable daily intake of toxic metals ([Saper et al. 2008](https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.300.8.915)). The abstract does not single out calcined shell preparations, so this study does not measure them directly. ## What makes this history interesting Three things stand out in the record. First, the calcium in the texts cited here came as shell, bone and mixed mineral preparations, not as a pure mineral. Safety records point to two problems with those forms: metal contamination in some Ayurvedic medicines sold online, and calcium overload from milk-alkali regimens. Second, the rickets account in the 2003 *Pediatrics* review runs through cod-liver oil and sunlight, which led to vitamin D. Calcium and vitamin D are tangled together in that account, and the trials cited here test calcium alone and with vitamin D. Third, the most striking fact in the record is the case report's claim that milk-alkali syndrome is "currently the third most common cause of hypercalcemia." The report links modern cases to the rise in calcium-containing supplement use, which is the point most readers will not expect. ## The product, and what its label says Mt. Angel Vitamins sells one product that matches the calcium citrate discussed above: [Calcium Citrate 250 mg, 60 vegetarian capsules](https://www.mtangelvitamins.com/products/calcium-citrate-60ct?utm_source=learn_hub&utm_medium=content&utm_campaign=blog_post&utm_content=history-of-calcium-supplements-from-chalk-to-bone-trials). The product page, as of October 20, 2026, lists a price of $17.99 for the 60-capsule bottle. At the label's one-capsule serving, that is about $0.30 a day. Each capsule contains 250 mg of calcium, which the label shows as 19% of the Daily Value. The calcium comes from a citrate chelate and a hydrolyzed rice protein chelate. The label directions say one or more capsules daily, as a dietary supplement. The other ingredients are vegetable cellulose for the capsule, magnesium trisilicate, silicon dioxide and magnesium stearate. The page says the product is made at the company's cGMP facility in Mt. Angel, Oregon, and that every lot has its own certificate of analysis. Statements on this page have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease. When you compare calcium labels, compare the milligrams of elemental calcium per serving rather than the weight of the capsule. The NIH figures in the sources section are why: the same weight of carbonate and citrate delivers different amounts of calcium. ## Frequently asked questions ### Who first isolated calcium as an element, and when? The record does not name the first person to isolate calcium. The earliest paper in the record is Humphry Davy's 1808 paper in *Philosophical Transactions*, which reports metals obtained from the alkaline earths. The catalogue record does not name calcium among them, so Davy is not credited here with a specific calcium isolation. ### How did chalk and antacids become calcium supplements? The record links calcium to ulcer treatment more than to chalk antacids. A regimen of milk, cream and alkaline powders, known as the Sippy regimen, was used for peptic ulcer disease. According to a 2010 case report, that regimen produced milk-alkali syndrome, with hypercalcemia, metabolic alkalosis and renal failure, and the syndrome has returned as calcium-containing supplement use has grown. The record does not trace the path from antacid chalk to calcium pills, so this article does not describe one. ### When did bone-density trials start shaping calcium advice? The earliest advisory in this record is the NIH consensus conference of 1994, titled "Optimal calcium intake," though its recommended intakes are not stated here. Bone-density outcomes then appear in the trials. The 2006 WHI trial found hip density 1.06% higher with calcium plus vitamin D. A 2015 *BMJ* review of 59 trials found gains of 0.7% to 1.8%, which its authors judged unlikely to produce a clinically significant fracture reduction. ### What did the Women's Health Initiative calcium and vitamin D trial measure? According to PubMed, the 2006 WHI trial randomized 36,282 postmenopausal women to 1,000 mg of elemental calcium as carbonate with 400 IU of vitamin D3 daily, or to placebo, and followed fractures for about seven years. It measured hip bone density, which was 1.06% higher with the supplements, and hip fracture, with a hazard ratio of 0.88 (95% confidence interval 0.72 to 1.08). Kidney stones rose, with a hazard ratio of 1.17 (1.02 to 1.34). ### How do calcium citrate and calcium carbonate differ in source and absorption? Both supply calcium, but in different amounts per gram. The NIH fact sheet says calcium carbonate is 40% calcium by weight and calcium citrate is 21%, so a citrate dose needs more weight for the same calcium. The NIH also says citrate depends less on stomach acid and can be taken without food, and that absorption of calcium supplements is greater with food. A 1999 meta-analysis of 15 absorption studies found citrate absorption 27.2% higher on an empty stomach and 21.6% higher with meals. These are absorption studies, not fracture trials. ### What is Aquamin calcium, and where does it come from? Aquamin is described as a calcium-rich multi-mineral supplement derived from red marine algae, according to a 2020 *Journal of Medicinal Food* paper whose authors are affiliated with Marigot Ltd. in Cork, Ireland. The abstract does not name the algae species. Processing details are not given here. The same paper reports in vitro fermentation results, not human outcomes. ## Where the record is thin The positions of Japan's food-for-specified-health-uses system, China's National Health Commission, India's ICMR and Ayurvedic Pharmacopoeia, the WHO, Health Canada and the Australian TGA on calcium are not set out here. The record does not name the first person to isolate calcium, and it describes no early calcium products, patents or manufacturers. The dates of the *Shanghan Lun* and the *Charaka Samhita* are uncertain, so this article gives neither. The recommended intakes from the 1994 NIH consensus conference are not quoted here. The record does not explain why the US and UK figures for older women differ. ### Related reading - [Fluoride, from brown teeth to community water](/blog/history/history-of-fluoride-from-brown-teeth-to-community-water) - [How iodine went from seaweed remedy to iodized salt, another mineral origin](/blog/history/history-of-iodine-from-seaweed-to-iodized-salt) - [The same question for magnesium, from laxative to essential nutrient](/blog/history/history-of-magnesium-from-epsom-salt-to-essential-mineral)