DEAR DR. BLONZ: I was told to take a calcium supplement, but the one I purchased says to consult your doctor if you are taking estrogen, which I am. Why is that? -- J.D., Anderson, South Carolina

DEAR J.D.: Product cautions are not to be taken lightly. But for some perspective, these warnings serve the dual purpose of alerting consumers to potential concerns while affording the product's manufacturer a measure of liability protection. There are always possibilities for unforeseen interactions. When there is a known risk, or at least a suspected one, these tend to get notations on the product label or insert.

As for the particulars of your question, calcium supplements are commonly used along with hormone replacement therapy. Other ingredients in that supplement may be responsible for the caution. Get clearance from your physician, which may only involve a simple phone call.

The bottom line is that these decisions are best made with the health professional most familiar with your particular situation.

DEAR DR. BLONZ: Is there any significant difference between the protein in red meat and that found in seafood, such as shrimp? I reduced my meat intake to once a week, but I'm concerned that I’m not getting enough protein. I do a cardio workout three days a week and also work out with weights. I am interested in adding some seafood to the menu, but wondered if that protein is as good as that found in meat. -- SF, Phoenix AZ,

DEAR S.F.: There are minor differences between the proteins found in red meat and seafood, and these are mainly different amounts of the various essential amino acids. Both are considered high-quality “complete” proteins, in that they both contain good amounts of all the amino acids the body needs to make its protein. To answer your question, you should consider them comparable.

Scientists score proteins by looking at the types of amino acids they contain and then comparing them with the amino acids in our body's protein. Those that compare most favorably have the highest score. Egg whites (albumin) are usually considered to be the ideal protein, followed by dairy, fish, beef and poultry. Contrast this with lower-scoring vegetable proteins, such as corn, wheat and rice, which contain some protein but lesser amounts of one or more of the essential amino acids. Be aware that the protein listing on the Nutrition Facts label does not address protein quality.

Most people have no problem getting the protein they require. In fact, in this country, we tend to eat more protein than our bodies need. We also have fewer of the plant foods that can help provide the dietary fiber and valuable phytochemicals that support our health.

The key is to have a mix of high-quality protein foods and other protein-containing foods, including grains, legumes, vegetables, nuts and seeds.

Send questions to: "On Nutrition," Ed Blonz, c/o Andrews McMeel Syndication, 1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO, 64106. Send email inquiries to questions@blonz.com. Due to the volume of mail, personal replies cannot be provided.

DEAR DR. BLONZ: As temperatures begin to rise, I turn to cooking outside on the grill. Every year I get reminded of the potential dangers of barbecuing and wanted some input about the formation of carcinogens. -- L.G., Tulsa, Oklahoma

DEAR L.G.: Now that warmer weather is in the forecast, the grills of America will spring into action. Cooking food this way does have its “dark” side in that along with adding good taste, it can add potential risk factors. But let’s flesh out this serving of risk by seeing how it fits with other behaviors we face every day.

A key issue is that when you use high heat for cooking protein foods such as meat, pork, chicken or fish, mutagens can form as the food is charred. A mutagen is a substance with the ability to cause mutations, or changes, in a cell’s genetic material. Mutations occur all the time, and most don’t amount to much because our immune system is designed to hustle them away before they mess things up. The danger is certain types of mutations occurring in an unfortunate sequence, in the wrong place and time with the body’s immune system in a state of vulnerability. This can result in a healthy cell turning cancerous.

A key issue with grilling is when fat drippings hit the heat source and become the potent carcinogen “benzopyrene,” which can rise in the smoke and get deposited on the food. (A carcinogen is a substance that causes a mutation shown to cause cancer.) Our immune system is still on the scene, but the greater your exposures, the greater your risk.

Now that we know what can happen when you cook on the grill, let’s discuss its relative risk. No, this is not the risk that your relatives will drop by unannounced; it’s a way to consider one hazard in relation to others. The classic article by Dr. Richard Wilson in Technology Review provides an interesting list of behaviors that increase the odds of death by one in a million. These include: traveling 10 miles by bicycle or 300 miles by car; rock climbing for 1.5 minutes; smoking 1.4 cigarettes; canoeing 6 minutes; having one chest X-ray in a good hospital; spending 20 minutes being a man aged 60; and eating 100 charcoal-broiled steaks.

Bikers, drivers, canoers, rock climbers and especially males over 60 would feel that these risks are acceptable. Given this, the relative risk of eating grilled steaks, while it should be acknowledged, might seem a bit less onerous. The point here is not to dismiss risk in a cavalier manner. If you char your foods, these substances can be formed. If you eat charbroiled foods, they can enter your body. But there are steps to lessen this risk. For example, don’t place the food directly over the heat to prevent the drippings from generating smoke. (Check more ways to reduce the risks when grilling at b.link/fs82gp.)

Finally, don’t lose sight of that big picture. If you are worrying about grilling while sitting in the sun without sunscreen, or are smoking, overweight, with untreated high blood pressure, and with an inactive lifestyle eating an unhealthful diet, your priorities are all wrong. These factors represent a greater risk than the chicken on the grill.

Send questions to: “On Nutrition,” Ed Blonz, c/o Andrews McMeel Syndication, 1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO, 64106. Send email inquiries to questions@blonz.com. Due to the volume of mail, personal replies cannot be provided.

DEAR DR. BLONZ: I continue to hear that the vitamins in foods are superior to those in dietary supplements, but supplement companies claim that theirs are “whole food” supplements -- the same as what you get from food. Does the human body make a distinction? -- G.Q., St. Louis, Missouri

DEAR G.Q.: A vitamin is a vitamin, whether it comes from food or is made in a lab. To the body, that vitamin is an essential chemical that it cannot make on its own in sufficient quantities to satisfy its needs.

That answers your main question, but the discussion does not stop there. If your question had been whether it’s better to get our essential nutrients from foods or out of a bottle, my response would be different.

For perspective, consider that many tales of nutrient discovery have begun as medical studies where animals’ health went awry for unknown reasons. The design of such studies usually includes an experimental group, which receives the treatment being studied, and a control group that receives no treatment. (For the purpose of this example, we will assume that the treatment being studied has nothing to do with nutrition.) To keep the focus on the potential effect of the treatment, both groups receive a similar diet -- usually one that contains all the nutrients known to be essential at the time.

Studies like these might not start as detective stories, but that is what they often become when the control group’s animals fail to thrive in some way. This is the group that should have coasted through the study with no issues.

At that point, attention turns to the conditions of the experiment to see if something there might be responsible. In the early days of nutrition research, it was often discovered that the animals’ supposedly complete diets were missing something. Researchers then isolated and described the needed compounds, which, after extensive study, joined the list of essential nutrients. (For more on the early history of nutrition, see b.link/2nkycj.)

These days, we have good methods to determine what amount of a nutrient is needed to prevent a deficiency, and we have learned that there are, indeed, circumstances where certain people need to supplement. However, science is still working on understanding how nutrients work together, such as how the ratio between two essential nutrients can also affect our metabolism. For example, the amount of zinc in relation to copper may be just as important as the levels of these nutrients individually.

In addition, there is still work to be done on the interactions between nutrients, medications and herbs with the aging process, stress and various other health problems.

“Modern” science will always have an aura of “the epitome of knowledge,” but we are far from knowing all there is to know about health and nutrition. So, while the body might not distinguish between nutrients in food versus identical substances in a supplement, the package most likely to contain the supporting cast for any nutrient is the whole food in which it is produced.

Our lives are a snapshot in time, but whole foods are the packages that continue to be perfected through successive generations. We get the benefit of this noblest of nature’s forces when we head first for the produce aisle, rather than thinking we can get the equivalent from a supplement.

Send questions to: “On Nutrition,” Ed Blonz, c/o Andrews McMeel Syndication, 1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO, 64106. Send email inquiries to questions@blonz.com. Due to the volume of mail, personal replies cannot be provided.